User talk:VeryVerily

This user may have left Wikipedia. VeryVerily has not edited Wikipedia since February 2006. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Please add new messages at the bottom.

I reserve the right to post replies on this page instead of your user talk page, although I often don't.

/archive /Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies

Thanks for reverting my user page! Angela 09:05, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate your effort on the attacks on humanitarian workers page!2toise 09:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! :) VV 20:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bravo verily, Verily Verily, for your very worthwhile IMHO recent addition to the Genocide page. Puts a lot of controversies in context. TonyClarke 09:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lodar, VeryVerily. Good suggestion on not yanking paragraphs out of an already contentious article without first going to the Talk page. By the way, I had already seen that the passage had been deleted, so I could figure out what your comment meant. Other people may be puzzled, however. Good luck, and keep on trying to talk sense to people. P0M

Regarding your recent edit to Bush family conspiracy theory: Oh, yeah, sure, go and bring evidence into it. What a spoilsport! ;-) -- Cyan 05:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peak 05:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): Thanks for your responses at User_talk:Peak#Multi-regional hypothesis. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I will post some responses there rather than here, but in the meantime, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the general tone of your response, and hope that we can resolve any remaining points of misunderstanding amicably. Peak

Thanks, I did not dare doing that with the GWB National Guard accusations.

;-) -- V V 01:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the terror word at March 11, ...Madrid. I was getting very angry. Pfortuny 08:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

KR

User:Hanpuk is busy trying to whitewash the Khmer Rouge article based on topics we have went over there and other places before. I've run out of reverts for the day. --mav 06:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

your thoughts might be usefull over at Talk:Khmer Rouge PMA 22:47, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I didn't even notice until just now, when I checked the history. Meelar 06:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Rigged"

I like your latest wording best. I hope Meelar agrees. Cecropia 01:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VV, I'm in my own little drama right now and I'd rather not step into the middle of another one. Sorry. Rick K

lousy English

I would like to express our (collective) great gratitude to all Wikipedians who correct grammatical errors and unidiomatic expressions from pages where ESL-wikipedians have put their mark on the prose. Some foreigners' English is worse than others' — this is not politically correct to state, but I do it anyways — and that of Finns belong to the worst. Thank you! Thank you very much!

If your work on Continuation War wasn't enough (and frankly, that very article is far from ready with respect to factual content and NPOV, imho), or if you would like more praise, take a look at: User:Tuomas#Articles_in_need_of_a_check_by_a_native_English_speaker ;-))

/Tuomas 08:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Grammar fix

I don't mind the grammar fix, as a matter of fact I encourge you to fix my grammar because I have a habit of typing fast. Thanks Comarde Nick

compliments

I wanted to compliment you on your civility, something which should be standard on the wiki, but in practice is rare enough to earn my compliments. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation re: Indo-European

The article says "The Basque language is unusual in that it does not appear to be related to any known languages." Why do you insist in inserting "living"? Basque does not appear to be related to any known languages, period. It is of course true, that if we go back two or three thousand years, there may be languages to which Basque would then seem to be related, but we don't have any remains of such languages and hence "living" is unnecessary, as Basque does not appear to be related to any dead languages either. Vice 21:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See "aquitanian" at [1]. V V 21:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good point - I was unaware of that. Perhaps then you should include a short reference to Aquitanian in the sentence? Vice 22:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We could, but I don't see the point. It's just an offhand reference in a list of non-IE languages in Europe, a bit of a tangent. Deeper details belong in the Basque article, which the reader seeking further information can click on. V V 22:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfA Nonsense

Thank you for the kind words on RfA. I'm not going to dignify the attacks with a response, but I appreciate that you stepped up to speak.

If you're curious: I first became active during the Quickpoll saga. I grew interested in the administrative workings -- but I saw that people tended to vandalize each other's pet articles, so I decided it would be wise to maintain separate accounts for contributing versus talking. The community has affirmed this practice on numerous occasions, so I feel I'm on solid ground -- and I use my real name and valid email for voting and controversial discussions, so I daresay I've got a better claim to legitimacy than certain other users.

As I said, I won't dignify the personal attacks on RfA, because they're irrelevant to the merits of the nomination. But thanks again for stepping to my defense. I noticed it, and I do appreciate it. Cribcage 17:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

...for fighting the good fight against Shorne/Hanpuk/whateverhisnameistoday. I just saw his long diatribe on RfM...*sigh* I don't know how you do it. It's nice that there's some people willing to continually take on this nutjob in order to stop all our articles on the subject from being trashed. Ambi 10:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Human Genome Project - in the news

You are obviously correct, the math section in my brain is currently undergoing maintenance ;) -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:16, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please end the edit war with Shorne on "South Korea"

Please keep the "editing dispute" tag until a resolution can be reached on the article`s Talk page. --Ce garcon 10:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:South Korea. Very Verily 10:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

vandalism

I'm not astounded, but I choose to engage the issues on the level of content. And in this case, he seems to be reverting me, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

213.56.68.29

Hello! Who is 213.56.68.29, who reverts History of Modern Greece? Boraczek 08:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) Thx! Boraczek 08:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

. . . for catching the vandalism on my user page. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deletionist campaign

Hi there. As someone who has displayed a fairly rational and objective attitude towards micronation articles in the past I thought you might be interested to note that the rabid deletionist lobby is on the march against them again.

The latest target is New Utopia, which although a poorly written article in its current form concerns a subject that is eminently encyclopaedic, being the latest in a long line of libertarian "new country projects" (and therefore representative of a notable social/historic phenomenon), being the subject of dozens of international press and TV stories, as well as the subject of a widely-known US Securities & Investment Commission investigation for fraud.

You might want to take a look at the VfD and respond accordingly.

For future reference you might also want to note the articles in the Micronations Category, in order to keep an eye on its contents; I’ve been adding a number of well-researched, illustrated, fully referenced articles to this category in recent months, but there are moves afoot thanks to a highly suspect ongoing arbitration process to have me banned completely from writing anything at all about micronations on the basis that as the founder of one, anything I write is somehow self-promotional and/or controversial. --Gene_poole 23:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004 U.S. election in progress glitch

Don't worry; the IRC crew is on it. :) -- Grun t ҈ 03:11, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

I was trying to do it without erasing the intermediate edits, but the problem was too large to correct as quickly as needed, so I reverted myself. This MediaWiki bug really needs to get fixed (the problem comes from edit conflict merging and section edits, I believe). Very Verily 03:13, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Asshole

Even though you edited it out, it doesn't make you any less of an asshole. You're an asshole whether it says so here or not. Asshole. 68.1.174.46 03:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree 209.197.155.38

It takes a base state of mind to misuse this eminent forum for base and uncouth statements, such as the above.
Such statements are compulsorily considered as self-reflective, if anything at all.  PANTHERAROSA/ 02 Dec 2004

Ann Coulter

Hey, I reverted the article back to my edit but I'm not trying to start an edit war here. I think there is criticism to be made of the PIPA study, and I'm looking for some un-biased counter. As the article stands right now, I think the caveat at the beginning of the section will do (for now) while we find something else. This isn't a left/right thing so I'm not going to get into that. I just feel that it is the difference between PIPA (who I will agree has a bias, but a small one) and Ann Coulter who has a right-wing opinion on every issue under the sun. Thanks, --TheGrza 06:15, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Empire of Atlantium

The edit war over Empire of Atlantium, IMHO, needs to stop, I have put up the issue in question on the Talk page, and have made a request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please put in your vote instead of reverting without discussing it on talk. Samboy 02:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Template:Commons

Hi. You just removed the <br style="clear:both" /> line from the Template:Commons. Without that the template is occassionally indented by other pictures (e.g. on Joystick). Is there a special reason to remove this line? Just curious. Chris 73 Talk 06:33, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

I just resized the image on Joystick. That works for me. Happy editing. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:52, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Changing names

Don't worry about it: I'm not. I know better than to take things like that personally. One of the things I learned in life is to enjoy things while you have them, and let them go when you don't. Things change, and that's a good thing.

I'm looking at this name change as an excuse to get the community involved in something fun, something outside the normal edit routine. So, one thing you can do though is join in the fun in on my Name the Admin Candidate Contest!

Cheers,

ClockworkTroll 23:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) (soon to be something else).

Talk Archive

I saw you deleted our recent discussion here about the 3RR, with an edit summary that said "archive". Where did you archive it to? ~leif ☺ _HELO 08:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

/archive. Like it says at the top of this page. Thanks for your interest, I'm sure you wish the best for me. Very Verily 09:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I missed that somehow. As for wishing the best, I wish wikipedia the best, and I wish you wouldn't revert-war so often. When I posted on your talk page before, I didn't realize the 3 Revert Rule was a "guideline" rather than an official rule. What brought this to my attention now (of course) is the present Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement poll. I am curious to know, if the consensus is (as it currently appears to be) that the 3RR should be enforced, will you change your editing practices and try to abide by it? ~leif ☺ _HELO 09:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I won't have a lot of choice, will I? Very Verily 09:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll double-check. Do you want the page unprotected? I think it's been reverted too much, 3RR or no... Pakaran (ark a pan) 12:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this a third revert in 24 hours? Pakaran (ark a pan) 14:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My bad. That actually explains why I've made some questionable calls in the past. Pakaran (ark a pan) 14:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

I suppose you were referring to GRAHAMUK's change when you commented no it's not, and the succeeding sentences lay out the position in a neutral manner, not mine (which I posted some quarter of an hour before you overwrote it). I'm okay with your change, just wanted to point out how easily such accidents happen.Rl 12:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since withdrawing from all non-Australian topics I haven't been following the Shorne saga. What has been going on? Adam 21:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If that happens I will, with considerable regret, withdraw from Wikipedia altogether. An encyclopaedia that can't or won't defend itself against Stalinist and LaRouche wreckers will never succeed and doesn't deserve to. Adam 01:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Octopus-related topics

Would you mind if I added this to my quotes page? It's been making me giggle all day. Ambi 08:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry

Apologies for the revert - for some reason I misread which page I was reverting. Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No prob. I was wondering what was up, and you beat me to reverting back (with a curt "myob" summary). Very Verily 21:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I too reverted back. i got no edit conflict, the edit went through just fine, yet it's not in the page history. Wierd. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 22:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a "feature" of the new MediaWiki software. If an edit is identical to what's there, it quietly vanishes, edit summary and all, without telling the user. It's extremely annoying, especially if one is putting relevant information into the edit summary. To thwart it, I often add a space or something to the edit so that in case of an edit conflict I'll either be told or it will go through. Very Verily 02:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but I don't think the ArbCom is even a small part of Wikipedia's problems. I am thinking of writing a "Wikpedian Manifesto" setting out my views of a reform agenda - do you know if anyone else is working on such a thing? Also, do you know anything about "Wikipedia 1.0" or whatever it's called? Why has this idea not progressed? Adam 10:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I am glad that someone else is thinking about these issues, but yes, I do have in mind more "foundational" changes. My views are based on what an encyclopaedia is, or should be: accurate, comprehensive, reliable and stable. The reputation of the Britannica (for example) rests on its reputation for accuracy. People cite its articles without checking its sources because they have confidence in its writers and editors. No-one in their right mind would cite Wikipedia as a source for anything, because its articles are unstable and have no quality control.

The solution to this would be (ideally) to make Wikipedia a closed community of editors, who are known to each other by their real names, who have password-access to the articles, and who have been admitted to editorship by the community after a period of apprenticeship and probation. I would not be overly restrictive: I would admit anyone who can write competently in English on any subject, and who shows a reasonable willingness to abide by agreed rules and conventions. I expect this would result in the exclusion of only a few percent of current editors - but those few editors cause 90% of the current problems.

Secondly I would create a hierarchy of articles, which I think you also suggest. After a period of "open editing" (the length of which would depend on the complexity of the topic), an article would be declared to be "finished," and thereafter could only be edited by leave of a supervisory committee of some kind. This would enable us to build up a stable corpus of reliably accurate articles which did not change every day, which outside readers could rely on and cite.

In practice I think the first of these suggestions would be impossible to achieve, since the process fetishists will never allow the "free Wiki" aspect of Wikipedia to be diluted. The compromise solution would be to have the closed community of editors as a subset of all editors, whose function would be to select articles from the general Wikipedia and create a "superpedia" of finished articles sitting on top of Wikpedia. The disadvantage of this would be there would then be two versions of the same article in existence.

Your thoughts on this welcome. Adam 12:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response to the above by: Although 18:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This is why Wikipedia has become so large so fast. Tinkering with that freedom to edit may possibly do more harm than the small number (in percentage terms) or rogue edits. Most rubbish edits are reverted fairly quickly. Edit wars can be more problematic.[reply]

Rather than trying to restrict new users until they have proven themselves, I would perhaps favour a system whereby certain "qualified" users can certify a page as being correct, and complete. Users could then select either the latest version, or an earlier version which has been certified in some way. If a user believes that a later version is more complete, or more accurate, he could ask the previous certifier, or another "qualified" user to add the certification. After making a certain number of edits, new users could automatically become candidates for "qualification", through some sort of voting by previously qualified users.

Your criticism

I just saw your comment to me on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eequor. In retrospect, the tone I used had more to do with the argument over the validity of Eequor's comments, but wasn't appropriate for a discussion of Eequor herself in terms of her qualifications for adminship. Thank you for calling it to my attention. --Michael Snow 18:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since I was harsh myself, I'm not going to complain about whether you were too. My "lashing out" was a combination of my opinion on whether Eequor would make a good admin and my distaste for the whole TINC debate. I agree that Eequor handled the situation well, although she also knew well enough what to expect when she agreed to be nominated. Anyway, I dislike the use of the word cabal in this setting for the same reasons that I dislike the word troll. The cabal is constantly complaining about the trolls and trolls are constantly complaining about the cabal, and the words are bandied about to the point that they are simply epithets.

I agree with you about the complexity of Wikipedia society. As for my position in this complex system, it is whatever it is, but I'm sure enough about my own motivations to know that I didn't feel personally implicated or threatened by Eequor's comments. I'm not a developer, after all. Also, rather than preserve any particular position, I would prefer to keep an egalitarian ethic within the system, so that my conduct and arguments (as well as those of others) can be considered on their own merits and not skewed by some idea of social rank. --Michael Snow 01:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LaRouchites and Stalinists

I think it's time a group of editors made a direct approach to Mr Wales and whoever else is in charge here, telling them that unless they make a definite decision to support legitimate editors against this handful of LaRoucheite and Stalinist wreckers, in other words to agree to defend the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia, they (we) will leave Wikipedia, encourage others to do so, and tell the world why. Adam 10:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I support your policy changes, thanks, You are the greatest

I support your policy changes. Wikipedia should try to keep its great editors, such as Adam, whose contributions should be protected against deluded cultist, ignorant newbies and other incompetent editors. I am not a great editor but I am not incompetent either. NPOV policy should mention that contributors should not rely on a single, non-scientific, non-scholarly, non-mainstream source but instead rely on as many independent sources as possible. Such a neutral formulation of NPOV policy will help to fight the cultists in a non-insulting, non-stigmatizing way. Andries 10:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An alternate strategy would be to form a political party within Wikipedia, with the declared aim of winning majority support for the policy described above, and conducting a campaign among Wikipedians to that end. There is also the possibility of forming a resistance movement, pledged to reverting all edits by a named list of LaRouchites and Stalinists, and daring the powers-that-be to ban all of us. That might force intervention from on high. If you are banned, please keep in touch by email. Adam 11:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Very for fixing my Arbitration commitee election 2004 page.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 01:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strategy

I think you got outsmarted - reverting has never been a winning strategy, and by getting people focussed on that, you missed the chance to get Shorne booted for the vitriol he spews at everybody who disagrees with him. Stan 16:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Name

Posted on User_talk:ClockworkSoul

It's a bit late to bring this up, but I must say that I'm coming around to a different point of view on this name issue. Having an admin named Troll seems almost defiant to the real trolls, as though they bother us so little we're happy to use the name. Well, just a very belated thought. Very Verily 12:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heya, VV. Sorry for the slow response: "real life" has been holding me prisoner lately, but I managed to get it drunk and escape. A few other people mentioned made this point, and I think that it was one of the best arguments in favor of keeping the old name. Oh, well, though: what's done is done, and at least I got to have a fun contest, right? :) ClockworkSoul 15:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Krusty

That is very good news. Glad to see you are still with us. Adam 04:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles (if any) under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary, but equally important, goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 00:16, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Congrats

Sorry for chosing wrong place for posting greetings, yesterday! Saw your great job on numerous subjects. I shall take the liberty to come back to you for assistance, as you obviously seem to have experience and clout. Pantherarosa.

A Message to my Fellow Candidate

Friend,
The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or {{stub}}. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.

--Paid for by Mero. for ArbCom

Human Rights in the United States draft

If you could answer my questions I've inlined in the lead section of the draft, then I will not oppose you putting your lead section back (even if I still think it's too long). Sound fair? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Once its resolved in the draft let me put it back so it doesn't get reverted immediately (or give it 24 hours and then do it in case something happens and I forget). Also, I'd like to remove the section "Review of edit history of this article" on the talk page, but I'll also lose your comments. I'd like to remove it because I feel it wasn't constructive and was fairly argumentative of me (I was feeling especially defensive at the time). Would you be opposed to me blanking it, or would you like me to remove it? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Contrib by Hour graph

If you have the time, would you mind updating my contribbyhour graph that you made for me? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Very Verily 01:02, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0

I've added a FAQ question dealing with the difference between versions 1.0 and 2.0. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:46, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for fixing the double message. I had some problems with my Internet connection and that's why I posted the message two times (having received no response from the server) and then I wasn't able to fix it myself. Hopefully, I will find some time to contribute to Wikipedia articles on linguistics. Boraczek 21:14, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

reliability

Thanks for your note. You say:

I certainly like the open model, and it's hard to deny that it has had extremely impressive results, generating a giant encyclopedia in short time.

I agree, or I wouldn't have got involved in the first place, or devoted so much time to Wikipedia since.

I think with a closed community of editors many areas (such as musical bands or old TV shows) would simply not get much coverage.

I agree, but don't care much.

The major weaknesses show up in areas which both are contentious and require specialized knowledge. (By contrast, many of our chemistry and mathematics articles are quite accurate.) There is simply no way under the current model such articles can be reliable.

I agree. I don't doubt that in large areas Wikipedia is doing fine. In my areas of interest - history and politics - it is not.

Perhaps the best bet in this regard is a sort of encyclopedia on top of Wikipedia, where there's a "pipeline" where reviewers can look at a Wikipedia article and its page history and develop a "super-version" which is certified as accurate.

I think that's more or less what I proposed. The question is who does the certifying?

You might want to look at Larry Sanger (major initiator of Wikipedia)'s recent piece "A personal statement about Wikipedia's reliability (http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/sanger3/wikipedia_statement.htm)".

I agree with most of what he says.

The real issue seems to be, how to persuade Mr Wales that something needs to be done urgently, before (as Sanger suggests) someone else does it for him by starting a new project. Adam 23:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adam 23:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the change on the Life in the United States box in the Economy of the United States article. I have to in truth admit the the box is merely an adaptation of another-I don't really know how to make one from scratch so I also had no idea how to fit it on the page. But I don't see why you think it's ugly, it's the same color as all the others, the economy article just happens to have the longest table I've ever seen on it already :-) naryathegreat 02:16, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

The photo that wouldn't die

Could you please weigh in again at Talk:Nicolae_Ceausescu#Death_photo? Ratza again wants to include the photo. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:52, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I see this may not be timely. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:53, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Please Help curtailing erratic and unreflected "editing" by certain pundits

Please help in keeping "Mani" from indiscriminately amending Articles. He obviously lacks knowledge and maturity to be left acting on his own. Out of ignorance and unreflected "PERSIANISM" he makes assertions totally out of touch with reality. Please look at the SAFAVIDS article and the "corrections" he introduces and reintroduces. It is a clear fact that the Safaviyeh Sufis and early Safavid rulers drew on the support of AZERIS and ANATOLIAN Turks to establish military forces. Initially Azeri (a Turkic idiom) was the official Language at the Safavid court, as numerous contemporary documents prove. WIKIPEDIA cannot afford erratic "editors" like Mani, who simply waists serious peoples time and contributes to misinformation. --Pantherarosa 09:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies==

Hi VeryVerily -

I've just been reading the intirguing list of Wikipedia philosophies on your user pages. Part-way through it you say:

Anti-authorism
(I'd like a punchier name for this.)

May I suggest "Collectivism"? Grutness|^hello? 04:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Economy of the United States

Hi VV. See Talk:Economy of the United States. - Mark 07:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mani-1 Mania

Thank you for following up. Mani-1 has not reverted the subject data, since. Let us see. All the best in your spiritual warfare, on this platform! --Pantherarosa 09:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Email

Sorry about not responding to your January 7 email, I haven't been doing a good job of keeping up with it lately. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-admin protection

I think it's a wonderful idea, and I would like to support you in making it official policy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

why all 1's?

You did some kind of edit to the Subud article (in the section the down side of Subud) and now instead of being numbered 1 through 6 (or whatever) all the numbers are "1". This doesn't make sense to me. Why is it?

Thanks, Aliman

Bring back quickpolls

I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? --Ryan! | Talk 05:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

On collectivization

I really was upset when I saw that some pig had changed your obvious hard worked on article to some horrible garbage that he put. The article in question is Holodimir, or Collectivization in the USSR and the like.

Hi

When/if you get back, if you are not too buzy, would you mind updating my contrib image for me :) (If you don't remember what it is, go to User:Ilyanep/Contrib and go to the link w/ the graphs at the bottom). Thanks. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RE: Contrib Graph.

Thanks a lot, I know how you feel as I have not been on here since April and before that December. Good Luck. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:MW

VeryVerily, are you back? You are listed on Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians. func (talk) 21:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey - I just noticed your vote on Eequor's RfA. It's nice to see you round again. I see you're still on a bit of a hiatus, but it'd be great to see some contributions again - you were a really good editor in your day. Ambi 16:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Point taken - I understand completely. If you're still interested in working on stuff though, it might be worth appealing the decision, as there's a very different arbcom these days, and Gzornenplatz and Shorne are long gone - there doesn't seem to be so many extreme leftist warriors around these days. Ambi 15:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eeyore

So how did your girlfriend Eequor's second RFA go? Oops, looks like she didn't make it. It looks like you coming out of hiding to support her was the real kiss of death. Red Fraction had to swing into action after seeing that. So so sorry. Red Fraction 16:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. It looks like you're not active anymore, but if you come back and are at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. I've marked you on this list as "inactve". Feel free to update this as well. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 3, 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Spelling

Hey, I made a small spelling fix on your Licensing page, then kept reading down the page where you said not to make any changes to your signed content, even for spelling. That page wasn't signed, but just thought I'd drop you a note to let you know what I did. - McCart42 (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vote on content

Hi. I was wondering if, as someone who has previously contributed to related discussions, you might be interested in taking a look at this vote, about some content in the micronation article. --Centauri 02:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia etc

Thanks for your message. I am preparing a major case on this matter and would welcome support from any interested editors. I will keep you posted. Adam 16:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: An arbitration appeal

Regarding your comments on User talk:Ambi and User talk:Jimbo Wales - I'm fairly sure that the committee would be perfectly willing to overturn the previous decision, provided that you (calmly) present a convincing case as to why we should do so. →Raul654 20:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikistalking guideline proposal

Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 19:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG PAGES LOCKED

Robert Sungenis=

You locked two identical pages. The second page should be the latest version by Truth_Seeker 22:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil and I are close. Please unlock it. I haev placed an uulock request already, but if you can do it, please do it.

Truth_Seeker 22:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosicrucian article

Dear user VeryVerily, as I have seen an edition of yours at the article Rosicrucian, I come to request your support to this article that I have just purposed for nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Rosicrucian. May you may give a look into it? And, if you consider it acceptable, then may you support it? Thank you! :) --GalaazV 02:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Prescott Bush image

Hi someone tagged this image as no source it was going to be deleted so I tagged it as fairuseunsure, can you tell me where you found the image then I'll add the source to the image page.. Thanks Arnie587 00:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hey, there was a recent change in the Mediawiki software that broke a lot of signtures. You may want to see Wikipedia:How to fix your signature to fix yours. Cheers. Dmcdevit·t 21:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Fine by me, and good luck. :) Ambi 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your appeal

You are more than welcome to quote me in any way you like. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Any enemy of Lopez is a friend of mine. Adam 22:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily/Evidence. Fred Bauder 02:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Mediation circa '04

I find that your characterization of my involvement in your mediation/arbitration issues of last year are largely accurate. I am available to make comments as necessary in your appeal should you or the AC require my involvement, although I imagine that what I wrote at the time would be more relevant. I appreciate you notifying me of the Appeal and that you were summarizing my involvement. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

Good to see you back, and good luck with the appeal. I didn't really follow the original case, but the judgement looked clearly disproportionate to me. --- Charles Stewart 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help with your appeal, but from a brief glance it certainly looks to me like you were being victimised, and I hope that even at this late stage the persicutors will still receive some sort of punishment. --Rebroad 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Here is a barnstar for your exceptionally cool and logical appeal to the ArbCom. I feel it is kind of superfluous, but you deserve some sort of award.

Good luck. Ashibaka tock 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least we are still fighting him and his sockpuppets. PMA 17:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to be available in the near future

I suspect we'll be writing up a proposed decision for your appeal soon, so you you might want to make yourself available if we (or any of our clerks) should happen to ask any questions here Raul654 07:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk page

I have done some clerk work on your case at User:Snowspinner/Clerk/VeryVerily. Please let me know if there is any substantial evidence that I have missed - I am particularly looking for evidence pointing towards the reforms and changes specifically asked for by the arbcom in your last case. Phil Sandifer 19:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Ruy Lopez's sockpuppets

In your appeal, you state that LanceMurdoch, HectorRodriguez, Richardchilton, Halifax, and Hanpuk are all sockpuppets of Ruy Lopez. Are you simply guessing, or do you have evidence linking them? Raul654 09:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...still waiting for an answer... Raul654 00:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of what I speak. I can only guess what you would consider "proof" - a notarized document signed by Richardchilton? I laid out a good deal of evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton, which you should have looked at - a year ago. But that was just early on; I had much experience with his editing patterns since and am confident in my assessment. Others users who have worked with him can say the same (I specifically cited Maximus Rex, and the IRC logs (User:Maximus Rex/asdf was deleted though) and his own confessions are linked to from the RfC page). Very Verily 08:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When someone asks for evidence, it does not help to point a 41 kilobyte RFC that mentions Ruy Lopez exactly once (at the very top, to say the match is "not 100%" and then never again goes on to mention him) and Maximus's evidence, which never even mentions his name. Based on your non-evidence, I will presume that you are, in fact, guessing. Raul654 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "not 100%" comment which I later strike out when more edits by "Ruy Lopez" come in and it becomes clear who he is. Yes at the first edit by him it wasn't completely clear. Now it is.

I did somewhat misunderstand your question I suppose, in that I thought you were asking for evidence of the sockpuppet army as a whole rather than one username's membership.

But again, I know his patterns through extensive experience and I know what I'm talking about. You may just take me at my word on this. But by saying you "presume" I'm guessing, you're basically calling me a liar. Ironic for someone who just falsely portrayed the "not 100%" comment.

Again, I don't know what you consider "proof", but you're not getting a statement signed by Ruy Lopez written in blood witnessed by the Pope. I could start listing the telltale signs and other bits of evidence, but the real proof is the overall pattern which I know well. From others' comments (Adam Carr, PMA), I'm sure I'm not the only one, but here I offer my own expert testimony as evidence. Very Verily 13:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of a checkuser request on Lopez was inconclusive, but this should not be surprising, considering the ramifications of a positive verification combined with editing from a dynamic IP. Lopez is suspected to have edited using many accounts, and here is some of the evidence I brought forth in both his recent RfArb as well as the check user request.

User has been accused of using multiple sockpuppets to abuse other editors, and wage endless RV wars on other articles. Probable sockpuppets include User:HectorRodriguez, User:Lancemurdoch, User:Richardchilton, User:Hanpuk, user:Timoteo III and User:Halifax. User is currently involved in RfArb against multiple users, and prior acts of sockpuppets could support an unacceptable pattern of behavior.

Lopez’s thoughts on who owns and runs Wikipedia are very similar to those of User:Lancemurdoch, and User:Richardchilton

It is my opinion that this evidence as well as all the results from the checkuser request make it very likely that Lopez has edited under all of these names an most likely all the names has been accused of using a sockpuppets. Ten Dead Chickens 14:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruy Lopez case notification

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ruy Lopez has been merged into the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily case Raul654 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean coup of 1973

I'd be interested in your opinion at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973#Differentiating the deposement from the coup. - Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily

This arbitration case has closed. The one-revert per page per day remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, and its associated enforcement, are vacated with respect to VeryVerily. However, the other still applicable remedy, namely that pertaining to discussion of reverts, and its associated enforcement, remain in force. Ruy Lopez is banned from using sockpuppets, and is placed on probation. VeryVerily may appeal to have the remaining remedy lifted in four months. The remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VV, please feel free to start editing again without restriction. I will be happy to help out if you get into any disputes. Ashibaka tock 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean edits

Hello, VeryVerily, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | ^Talk 02:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism/sandbox

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Anarchism/sandbox, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Anarchism/sandbox. скоморохъ 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Elevator

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Glass Elevator, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Glass Elevator. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Sep11

Template:Sep11 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Veggy (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Succession box three to three

Template:Succession box three to three has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Christmas_tree.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Christmas_tree.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:SamuelPrescottBush.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:SamuelPrescottBush.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rumors about the September 11 attacks

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rumors about the September 11 attacks. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumors about the September 11 attacks. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Vvbyhour.png

The file File:Vvbyhour.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Old orphaned esoteric file.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]