"Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives. A recent threat assessment by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic-related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue to serve as a justification for violent actions.” [1]
I have more vacation pics to offer, and today's story of Werner Bardenhewer. I took the pic, and it was my DYK on his 90th birthday, in both English and German. He spent the day in Africa, and after his return said - chatting after a mass of thanks he celebrated at Mariä Heimsuchung - that we'd have to talk about these articles. - The singer now on top of your talk was mentioned for Gabriel Yacoub, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mountain Landscape, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Mountain Landscape is difficult to capture with photography? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mountain Landscape. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mountain Landscape), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 8 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Bootleggers (Hopper), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Bootleggers portrays the illegal alcohol trade during the Prohibition era of the Roaring '20s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Bootleggers (Hopper). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Bootleggers (Hopper)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Very good, glad it made it to the main page. I calculated, looking at the views minus average day views, that 18% of readers who clicked on the painting's article during the time it was on the main page also clicked on the "List of paintings by..." in the See also section. Pretty good indication that adding lists there works well. Watching Jimmy Carter's funeral, met him once, a good guy. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Viriditas. Just letting you know about this as a courtesy. It's possible that this file may not need to be treated as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are wondering, this is where it's going.[2] The Trump admin, Elon Musk et al. are intentionally disrupting the US government to create a network state. This is the pipe dream that right-wing conservatives steeped in libertarianism have been working towards for many decades. "At a recent rally in Las Vegas, Donald Trump promised that, if elected in November, he would free up federal land in Nevada to 'create special new zones with ultra-low taxes and ultra-low regulation', to attract new industries, build affordable housing and create jobs. The plan would, he said, revive 'the frontier spirit and the American dream'." "Steve Sisolak, announced a plan to launch so-called "Innovation Zones" in Nevada to attract technology firms. The zones would permit companies with large land areas to form governments with the same authority as counties, including imposing taxes, forming school districts and courts, and providing government services." "In March 2021, Elon Musk announced plans to incorporate the Boca Chica area of far southeastern Texas, the site of a SpaceX rocket manufacturing and launch facility, as the city of "Starbase". Some have labeled the plans and SpaceX's existing operations in the area as an example of a company town." They are just re-inventing company towns, a workaround to reintroducing feudalism and serfdom.[3] These people never change. Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis wrote a book about technofeudalism in 2023.[4]Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a famous melody there, early on, I believe it is played by the oboe and the flute, that has found its way into much popular music. If I had more time, I would track it down, but I'm working on other things. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at her original photo, it's even better than the cropped one! This is one of my pet peeves. A Wikipedia/Commons editor thinks, "Hey, all bio photos should have a close crop and look the same", destroying any sense of uniqueness and creativity. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right! (I had not looked.) Only, in both my story and my list in memory, I can use only small size, and then you'd see almost nothing of her face. - I find today's birthday child particularly inspiring, by enthusiasm and determination. That was - believe it or not - a pictured DYK in 2021, without the last line though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I wanted to thank you again for reminding me of Tōru Takemitsu. Although he is played almost every day on the classical musical station in Hawaii, I had not gone back and revisited his work in earnest since 1985, when Ran was all the rage. I was also unaware that he was the arranger of all of the famous guitar reinterpretations of songs by the Beatles, as I've heard them so many times and never stopped to read the liner notes listing his name. I spent about two hours listening to his work today, and it left me in a very unusual state of mind. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha, I saw how much time you put into Amaranthus brownii and figured you might be interested in knowing that it now as a close relative which was just formally described: https://doi.org/10.3417/2025953
Its amazing that this species had its inoa Hawai'i preserved despite the species being overlooked by western botanists until now. It might also explain why A. brownii is extinct, if it was infected by the Wilsoniana pathogen too. Wasp32 (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wasp32: Based on the paper, it looks like the article needs some significant changes. For example, in the table located in the notes section, it says that A. viridis ranges from Kure Atoll, Kaʻula, Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, Maui, Kahoolawe, to Hawaii. But the paper suggests that this was wrong based on a misidentification in Wagner et al., 1990. Based on the current paper A. viridis should now be replaced as A. pakai in this table. Can you confirm this is correct? Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current distribution of Amaranthus viridis is in Imada 2019 and was not affected by the publication of A. pakai so it does not need to be updated in the table of the A. brownii article (http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/publications/pdf/tr69.pdf).
Can you help me with a hard-to-find item? I need to find the Talk Page where people discuss the requirement that headings not begin with articles. I ask you because you participated in this debate long ago. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So here's the dealio: I'm pretty good at tracking down old discussions, but this doesn't ring any bells. If you can give me a bit more info, such as the venue and year, that would help. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I managed Ravel's opera centenary 3 minutes before midnight ;) - Too late for 200 years of the first UK performance of Beethoven's Ninth the same day, but also too similar, - I didn't know that they had commissioned it. - Never heard - too tired to look now. Travel tomorrow, - or rather: later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
David Frum:
"The government of the United States seems to have made common cause with the planet’s thugs, crooks, and dictators against its own ideals—and in fact to have imported the spirit of thuggery, crookedness, and dictatorship into the very core of the American state, into the most solemn symbolic oval center of its law and liberty. The man inside that oval center did not act alone. He held his power with the connivance of others. They executed his orders and empowered his whims for crass and cowardly reasons of their own: partisanship, ambition, greed for gain, eagerness for attention, ideological zeal, careerist conformity, or—in the worst cases—malicious glee in the wreck of things they could never have built themselves. They claim the symbols of the republic as they subvert its institutions. They pin the flag to their lapels before commencing the day’s work of lying, obstructing, and corrupting. They speak for America to a world that remembers a different and better America. But that memory is already fading into a question of whether it was not perhaps always an illusion, whether this new regime of deceit and brutishness will not only form the future—but whether it also retrospectively discredits the American past." Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Point the Finger, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Point the Finger", a comic-book story written in 1989, has been described as "Trump fiction"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Point the Finger. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Point the Finger), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello, Viriditas. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Will A. Spens, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
That’s very kind of you considering you are quite the expert when it comes to art. I will take that compliment and cherish it. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 19 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hylaeus paumako, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a newly discovered bee descends from a single ancestor that reached the Hawaiian Islands between 1 million and 1.5 million years ago? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hylaeus paumako. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hylaeus paumako), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jules Rabin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Commune and Occitanie.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Check out my talk: for a great woman's Johannes-Passion (listen!), our music in detail, and three people who recently died and are on the main page (where she isn't). My call for collaboration has the first "no", and the second - for the Easter Oratorio - seems inevitable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard but sounds good. I have a bad memory, - he may be the author of a Summer Psalm that we like to sing. I'm in the middle of rewriting Easter Oratorio, - after it didn't make it to DYK and OTD on its 300th anniversary, I boldly (defiantly) nominated it for FAC, and now have to get it there. Later I'll explore Hillborg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio. I wanted that on the main page for Easter Sunday, but no, twice. You are invited to join a discussion about what "On this day" means, day or date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m listening to a track from the upcoming album Wind Takes Flight, with soprano Julia Marie Sinclair. It’s a somewhat modern approach to Hildegard. They performed the work live last year.[8] I think what impressed me the most is the quality of the recording. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed Danish acquisition of California until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thank you, Gerda. I've been fascinated with Satie for a long time. I think it started in the early 1990s when I realized one day that Satie was one of the unsung sources for modern, popular music. Once you hear it, you can't unhear it. Anyway, his obsession with Valadon is endlessly fascinating, and his commentary about her "lovely eyes, gentle hands, and tiny feet" are just so entertaining. If I had a time machine, I would definitely set it to the time and date of a little nook in a bar where I could watch the two of them get on and paw each other over a couple glasses of absinthe. (I wouldn't want to disrupt the timeline). Just to see the two of them together. Wow. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely imagination! - Practically: I asked on Classical music (and my talk) if can get Satie's article to GA by his centenary (1 July). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: That's great. I never gave much thought to how much you can hear Satie in Debussy, but yes, it's there. I should pursue that a bit more. I had the most terrible earworm the other day: "Cheek to Cheek", the 1956 version by Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong. I couldn't get it out of my head for like 12 hours. Why have you and Naruto been fighting for so many years? I think he was a bit too harsh with you. I love your hooks and all the energy you devote to to the subject. Yes, you could dumb it down and get a bit more pedestrian to attract more people, but that's difficult to do. I've always had trouble writing hooks, so I can understand the dispute. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Why we dispute: because N. keeps provoking me. Something is wrong with the instructions if they recommend to say - about people with great life achievements - no hint at these achievements (arguing that the broad readership would not be interested) but something marginal like father's job, some award, ... you name it. Trivia. The greatest provocation in years was the suggestion to say about Alla Osipenko that she caused a sensation by her body-revealing costume, - and nothing else. And N. doesn't even notice that it makes me sick. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: It sounds like several different things going on. On the one hand you have a clash of stylistic approaches, but on the other, a reliance on view counts and what readers want. I'm often interested in the counterarguments. Do we really want to give people what they want? 24/7 hooks about sex and violence? Towards this end, I recently made a re-discovery of sorts. There's this element of chance, randomness, and chaos when it comes to education. In other words, we shouldn't be supporting the expectations of our readers when it comes to hooks, but rather undermining them by giving them something they wouldn't necessarily want or expect. Why do I say this? Of late, I've been experimenting more and more and going back and forth with listening straight through my audio playlists and alternatively, listening to them on random shuffle. What I've found, is more often than not, because of the thousands of audio selections, the random shuffle will often expose me to something new and interesting in a more immediate way. Just yesterday, I heard a rare interview with John Coltrane that I had never listened to before because of the shuffle. Who knows how long it would have taken me to discover if I had listened to my playlists straight through? This is a tortured analogy, but in the same way, the sheer differences in hook styles and approaches, such as yours, also randomly exposes people to things that they never would have even thought about, let alone known. This will never translate into heightened views by a general audience, so I disagree with N. and others when it comes to using this metric to determine what is interesting or educational. This is also why the best things in life tend to be mostly unknown. What is often good, great, or excellent in terms of content or overall value is rarely if ever popular. These kinds of abstract ideas are often discussed in other contexts. For example, on Reddit, there are frequent discussions about cultural affectations for things, whether it is food, books, music, films, whatever. One thing you keep running into is this hostility to new things and experiences. There is this baseline of plain vanilla sameness that underlines consumer culture and is promoted at the highest levels, from brands to political parties, to entertainment products. Yesterday, I even heard a political scientist talk about this! She said that what they really need to discuss is structural reform of the US political system, but no single politician can do that on camera because it doesn’t translate into sound bites used on social media or in infotainment. This is fascinating. We can’t do what needs to be done because we can’t even talk about it due to the constraints put on public discourse and the reception from the public. Recent research has uncovered that much of this in recent years has come from Wall Street, which has infiltrated entertainment in such a way so as to basically eliminate anything new and unique. This is why it is so hard to find new and different content that doesn't resemble older content. I think we are also seeing this trend here in DYK. Any attempt to do something differently or out of the ordinary is perceived as "lacking views", which translates into lacking interest. But real interest doesn't work that way. That's the commodification, monetization, and click-model that Wall Street infected the internet with as a result of financialization. It's the primary engine of enshittification, and is the hostile enemy of true creativity and originality. That's what you are up against. My suggestion is to keep doing what you are doing, but find a way to adapt your approach to the house style by making it more palatable to the general public. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great thoughts, waking me up, thank you!! Back to little DYK: the rule is not too bad: something interesting from the article, but I believe we should add "about the subject". The profession of any subject's father - if it were interesting which I don't think - is nothing introducing the subject, and even if we'd add "primaballerina of the Kirov Ballet" (which would give her a top position, time and place): why mention the father at all when there are so many things that could be said about her? This is all theory because I won't take the trouble of making the article GA only to have that discussion, but it's a good example. I think excluding topics because they are believed to be not interesting is censoring, and prevents readers from meeting the new and unexpected. Was I surprised reading that she was the one to have starred with Nurejev in Paris the night before he defected! I confess to have never heard her name (or forgot) until she came up under the recent deaths. - Back from theory to reality: Easter Oratorio needs a new hook, again. Perhaps we'll discuss until the 301st Easter after the premiere comes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I too find DYK oddly resistant to good writing of hooks, favoring blandness. I've had multiple experiences where reviewers chose to go with blander language, even when that reduced the "hookiness". Some of it seems like a rules-for-the-sake-of-rules mentality. It's a general problem with Wikipedia, but it's particularly noticeable at DYK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was foolishly nowhere near ready. I've been going hammer and chisel rather hard on it--this long gone version here is what you would have seen versus now, 185 edits later. I'm not ready to resubmit it yet. But... if you had availability or interest, I was curious if you'd be willing to give it an informal once over, and let me know if I'm close to escape velocity for GA here? Or am I not on the launchpad yet? Thanks!
I was leaning toward an abundance of caution from the Complex ... subjects may require many citations point of view, since the topic is rather complex. Plus, being honest, my forays into two controversial pages have made me possibly overly-sensitive on citing things out the wazoo for the sake of caution. By the guidance, they can stay or go and I'd tried it both ways. I'm pretty sure there's no one who would call this page controversial or current, so I defaulted to complex and left them.
@Very Polite Person: I have an incredibly silly question for you: your article says the development program for Sentient began in 2009, with some declassification in 2010. Coincidentally, it was in 2010 that Jonathan Nolan and J.J. Abrams began writing Person of Interest, which is a TV show based on "the Machine", a Sentient-like system. Is there any connection between the two subjects, such that one influenced the other? Your article says that in 2010, "These were the first public references to what would become Sentient". Do you think Nolan and Abrams based their show on these public references? Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may well have -- that's the exact right time frame. Working on this is actually what led me directly toward Christopher Mellon. These kinds of topics are one of my things to work on. The Nolans did something like it before that in the The Dark Knight, at the end with the mass surveillance phones tracking everything. I know people in the industry, and the more financially successful some creators have entire staff that help them.
Like, we'd just assume someone like Swift or Oprah have a staff, for whatever roles. Top filmmakers pull similar cash and a lot more for the studios, so they have them too. Nerds like us, who help on research. Put some cool stuff in front of the genius creative brain... and voila, Person of Interest. If one of them literally popped in here and said: "Yep," I wouldn't even be surprised.
Yes. I think the major difference between the two is that the system in EOTS wasn't truly autonomous and was more concerned with mass surveillance as you said. Whereas the system in POI was both autonomous and used by bad actors in the same way as EOTS, but with more of a nefarious goal in mind. This also ties in with a lot of philosophy of technology, eugenics, tescrealism, etc. This is super interesting because Nolan continued this theme in Westworld and followed it out to its logical conclusion.[9] In fact there is somewhat of a continuity between the system in POI and the quantum computer known as Rehoboam in WW. Thanks for the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. These might be fun for you, I started on them recently: Artificial intelligence in government and Algocracy, and some of the stuff around the blue links from there. It starts heading into some creepy and "over our collective species dead bodies no way" rich-person technocracy horrors... instead of like the good technocracy where we let doctors take point on medical law guidance, the civic engineers on road safety law, etc.... which can ultimately lead to The Culture kind of AI stuff. But less awesome Will Smith getting chased by the NSA in DC scenes. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re a Very Funny Person. My wheelhouse right now is in describing the rationalist and tescrealist movements as cults with roots in religion. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Very Polite Person: I don't see the statements in the lead section for Sentient as controversial, so as long as the statements are cited in the body, they don't need sources in the lead. Also, you don't need such a long see also section. It looks like you can easily add those links to the article. Finally, consider why you are using three different citations at the end of a sentence. That looks like citation overkill. If you really need to do that, bundle your cites. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try to focus on first usage on a consistent basis. You have AI as an abbreviation farther down than it should be. After first usage you can then use the term AI for a subsequent usage to save space. Follow this convention for everything else. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going to bring this up now rather than later: in the short sections that you have with one paragraph, consider if those short sections can be expanded to two paragraphs, if not, consider if they should be merged with other sections to make them longer. While I don't have anything against short sections with one paragraph, I've noticed that many other editors do. I don't know if this has to do with changing styles or what, but it's best to head this off at the pass before it becomes an issue. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re paragraph size and structure -- I actually prefer a slightly beefier passage and originally had it like that back here. For some reason I'd decided granular was maybe better, but I've undone it.
I sometimes bounce back and forth between OSX and Windows and Linux (I only read on mobile). I'm now realizing I basically read the MOS on curly vs straight backward, literally. At least it's an easy fix... -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images look good. You should try and see if the PDF for File:NRO Sapp Sentient Future Ground Architecture 2016 slide.jpg is available and extract the image or screenshot. Those presentations are usually available online and the quality of the extracted image/page would be much higher than what you have now. Alternatively, you could try and recreate the diagram on your own. A quick search for "GEOINT 2016 PDF" shows it is probably online. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section appears to have material not found in the body, for example, the "artificial brain" ("Classified at the highest levels, it has been described as an “artificial brain"." Also, when you quote something, follow it up with a citation, even in the lead.) Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I literally didn't notice that I excluded that prime cut quote from the body, or cut it somewhere. Let me put it back in.
Do I need to even have it in quotes given how Scoles uses it here...?
I'm trying to find that PPT or PDF if it exists online.
I don't think you need the quotes, but I am concerned with the metaphor of the artificial brain in general, as I've heard other voices in the tech space dispute this analogy, although they may be minority voices. I will ask User:Tryptofish for guidance here. It might also be a good idea for them to look at your article. The more eyes, the better. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm hardly married to the phrase and it seems like Scoles coined it there in regard to Sentient--all the other articles that bring it up all came after her article. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to the ping, I looked at the page with respect to putting the term "artificial brain" in quote marks. Starting with just a formatting issue, I made this edit: [10]. It's got nothing to do with the merits, but it follows Wikipedia's house style for whether or not to put periods, commas, and similar punctuation marks inside, or outside, quotation marks. It's given at MOS:LQ, and you might want to check the other quotes on the page for their conformity to that.
Now to the more substantive matter, I personally would not put it in scare quotes, unless you want to imply (in Wikipedia's voice) that the term is controversial. Given that we have a page on the topic, I don't think it's that controversial, but I don't know enough about Sentient to advise whether or not it might be controversial to apply the term there. I think Viriditas is also asking me how I feel about the term artificial brain more generally (as a neuroscientist), and I don't have a problem with using the term, because it's self-evident that it isn't "the real thing". As of May 2025, artificial brains are nowhere near to matching real brains, but I don't see that as confusing the reader, and I don't have any issues with writing about them as they are today.
If there's anything else you'd like me to look at there, please just ask, and I'll be happy to.
I don't know if people still give these out, but you deserve it for all the help you give in GA reviews. Hope you have a wonderful week! APKhi :-) (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The next time time you delete my talk page comments, I will report you at ANI. Please refrain from that sort of thing. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to get Irve Tunick on the main page for his birthday (i,e., June 27), but I am having two issues related to this that I wanted to seek your guidance on.
First, I had one editor reviewing the Irve Tunick article, (DaniloDaysOfOurLives). I think everything was done and the article was good to pass but he has had some medical issues and hasn't responded to me in a bit. So I wasn't sure how to move that forward with the review.
Second, in order to complete my QPQ, I needed to review another article so I reviewed John P. Morris. I think I did it all correctly but I wasn't sure if you could take a look to make sure procedurally I didn't miss anything Template:Did you know nominations/John P. Morris.
I thought you may be able to help me with these things since you have been so helpful before. But if you don't have time, don't worry about it. I will figure it out anther way. Thanks again! Remember (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remember: I might be able to take a look at it tomorrow or the next day, but I've got some other things to do right now. Regarding the Targeting of law firms DYK, you could throw a Hail Mary by picking a new hook, and make it the most vanilla hook you can think of; no controversy of any kind, but make sure it is interesting. Then leave a note on the DYK talk page telling them what you did and see if anyone will consider passing it. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, my apologies, I will review the rest of the DYK later today. I didn't know that you had fixed the issue as I must have missed the ping – I was waiting for it to be fixed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks re the see also argument; you are very articulate, but it should be fine. Spend a long in weekend in Glasgow and a night in Edinburgh a few weeks back and finally got to see the reliquary. It's so tiny and yet so detailed, was breathless. The NS Museum is huge and so the "medieval church" area was hard to find, had to ask several guides to point me towards the various twist and turns. It was recently covered in Archelogy Ireland, so may update the article. Best. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The places: a day full of great discoveries, culminating in Oliwa Cathedral which was called a must-see by Graham Waterhouse (subject of my first article, filling a red link) who played the organ once. Dinner right next to the Abbot's Palace, where Penderecki had also been a guest.
I'll hear today's topic today, - you can listen before I do because it was streamed yesterday - I am not happy with the death focus for the tenor, or actually any person, said so in the nom but feel not heard --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: People hear you darling Gerda, and I agree with you in principle, but in practice the only way to implement your suggestion is for the article body itself to have content along those same lines that is also interesting. How do we ride the line between informing, educating, and maintaining interest? I don't know, and I disagree strongly with many others who say that x number of people won't know about y. But I swallow my disagreement and move on. There's only so much you can do when you are up against an insurmountable force of opposition. Try to change your approach moving forward by accommodating those concerns. I know you don't want to and you think you're right, but find a middle ground. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Returning from the concert of my story. Listen perhaps (stream of yesterday, today different place and partly different program), - I'm full of music and not in the mood to discuss the lowlands of DYK. I wrote two biographies of people who took their life and didn't nominate them for DYK, intentionally so, that was decent, and I should have done the same with Gorai. My mistake. The tenor was from Ukraine, bright voice like the one who died, singing with the choir during the final movement, and I was close to tears. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but please understand what I am saying: if and when you get back to the "lowlands" of DYK and take up this argument once again (as I know you will), you will be far more successful by pointing to the problem of negativity bias, which is a way to defend your position. I'm trying to help. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see, I said bye to DYK when 2023 began, waste of time and life is short, but try to bring those articles to the added attention that comes with it that 1) fullfil the requirements (while most of the Recent deaths articles I deal with are too "old" and not sufficiently expanded), 2) are not by me alone, 3) have what every credit says: "Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page." I have begun to strike that sentence when - instead of what I found was interesting to say about the subject something different was presented. I wish that DYK should have a guideline saying that the hook should say something substantial about the subject, not something tangential. "negative bias" wasn't in my vocabulary, my English is limited, I wouldn't be able to use it with understanding, so please feel invited to argue but let my do article work. You may have seen in the Klaus König nom that I question if that this person portraying Tannhäuser well - a highly complex and interesting character which to learn about might be interesting for readers so far unfamiliar - should be described only as someone who trained as a housepainter. How that would be interesting to any readers escapes me, and perhaps you could mediate? I let most new articles and also most RD expanded this year go without a DYK attempt, - did you notice? - I though I made my creed in something meaningful introducing the subject clear in the five years this already lasts (since Yoninah died), but - shaking head in disbelief about another housepainter proposal - obviously not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Scandinavian migration to the Hawaiian Kingdom
There are almost certainly legitimate policy-based grounds to revert User:Flavor of the Month's ranting on the Loughner and Tucson shooting article talk pages. It would probably be advisable to cite some in your edit summaries, rather than engaging in pointless finger-pointing about who is killing who, along with irrelevancies about time zones. Using an edit summary as a forum while deleting content for doing the same really isn't a good look. [13]AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if "[t]here are almost certainly legitimate policy-based grounds to revert," why don't you actually cite a few? Or even one? I've posted not one, not two, but three reliable sources:
I reverted your edit to the ledes of the two articles per WP:DUE, and should probably also have mentioned MOS:LEDE too, since it is clearly pertinent. At which point it was open to you to start a discussion on the relevant article talk page - a reasoned, civil discussion, not an obnoxious rant, full of your own irrelevant opinions. As I made clear above, I think that Viriditas could have given a better edit summary when reverting your talk page edits, but regardless, they weren't appropriate for multiple reasons. As a means to present an argument for inclusion of content, attacking people before they have even participated in discussions, claiming to be some sort of impartial expert while demanding personal details from others, and engaging in facile speculations and conspiracy theories is a poor tactic, and liable to backfire. Maybe if you tried to come across less like a total asshole, you'd possibly get somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your interest in Jules Rabin, I thought you might be interested in Charlie Hardy, a former Catholic priest who has run for statewide office in Wyoming several times. He definitely meets notability guidelines even though he hasn’t won any races- he’s gotten a ton of press and a documentary film was made about him. Thriley (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: I appreciate the notice. My interest lies at the intersection and confluence of different streams of thought that by themselves don't mean all that much, but when they come together take on a kind of momentum and emerge as something new to forge a path in an altogether different direction from where they began. I will look into Hardy later tonight. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thriley, just to give you an idea of what I’m talking about. I’m trying to write about Jules Tavernier in Hawaii. It’s difficult because the info is sparse and contradictory, with even famous historians making strange comments and accusations. While struggling with that research, it turns out that everything connected to Tavernier has its own interest and story, sometimes surpassing Tavernier himself. One of these people is Julian Rix. He lived with Tavernier in SF at his famous art studio. It turns out that Rix’s work was instrumental in preserving the forests of what later became known as Adirondack Park. Rix’s work raised public awareness about the destruction of the forests due to logging. That’s the kind of thing that interests me. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thought maybe you have an interest in the 20th century American peace movement? I've got a ton of drafts in related areas- environmentalists, anti-war activists, Catholic Workers, back to the land advocates, etc. I'm too aware of the gaps in threads of thought all over Wikipedia even after nearly 25 years of its existence. Thriley (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m interested in the interconnecting patterns that emerge from that kind of list. For example, the reason I started the Bishop James Pike page is because his name kept popping up while I was studying PKD. From there, the connections get wild, absolutely fascinating, and I never pursued half of them. Pike’s wife, Esther Yanovsky, for example, has a deep connection with the history of San Francisco, but there’s not a word about it on Wikipedia. Those are the kind of connections that brought me to Rabin when I saw he had visited the Community of the Ark. What isn’t discussed is that Lanza del Vasto and Rabin may have crossed paths much earlier during the peace walk days. These gaps in the historical record make me sit-up straight and pay attention. Similarly, Pike got PKD all wound up and twisted on VALIS and then Pike up and disappears in the desert where he is found dead. PKD then imagines he is being visited by the ghost of Pike, etc. This stuff writes itself, I barely have to do anything. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - Check out my talk, - if you have little time, listen to Gilda Cruz-Romo in the final scene of Aida, if you have more read her article, and if you have still more check out my music, some sung with me in choir, some played by friends, all heard with friends. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today is Bastille Day, commemorated by a DYK as my "story" and a visit to the Bastille Opera in "music". I like the interview coming with the story, on the day before the big event, but for pomp and circumstance, the affair with 600 singing children and orchestra, and the singer dressed in the national flag, was also captured on videos, much slower. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three of "my" recent deaths bios are on the main page right now, one my story today, Gary Karr, and I loved to find his breakthrough concert in 1962 as a video. In my music today I match it with 9 other double bassists, 7 conducted by a person who's birthday is today - coincidence ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jahrhundertringremembered today, with the picture of a woman who can't believe what she has to see. - In addition to what I said on WT:DYK: I always have a set of DYK I like on my user page. I'd never think of top 10. I rather match them to the time (Bach cantata of the Sunday) and the articles further up. On Bach's day of death, most were around Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember to keep the articles and the DYK pages on your watchlist. Most problems arise when editors forget to do that. This happened to me a few days ago. I forgot to watchlist a bio and hook I created. It ended up on the main page with vandalism that had been there for a week. D'oh. Also, if a reviewer asks you to make a change or answer a question and you miss it, the review can end up getting closed out. As long as you have everything watchlisted you'll be fine. Viriditas (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment on Wilf Pine. I find what you say almost unbelievable. The para lengths are totally standard and no different to today's FA (Goblin shark), so I'm baffled. If young people find it all too vexing, well, what can I say?! Ericoides (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. FA is somewhat out of touch with the general readership. I love large paragraphs, it's what I grew up on. Heck, Kerouac wrote his original draft of On the Road on a scroll with no paragraph breaks at all. That's the kind of thing I'm used to, but people under 30 will tell you that they can't or won't read it. Something to do with how the internet changed the way people scan and read text. You can do a deep dive on it to find out more. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've got two kids myself, and I think everything should be done to encourage them to extend their attention spans. Coping with long paras is excellent training (that said, I have added six or so para breaks to the piece). By their age (yawn, yawn) I'd read maybe 1,000 books. Neither one of them has picked up a book all year, so I do appreciate what you are saying. Btw, does anyone review DYKs anymore? I've not done one for over a decade, but I seem to recall the process being somewhat speedier. Ericoides (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Long time no see on Wikipedia. That is partially my fault during our last encounter. Anyway, with my hat in my hand, I have changed my mind, and have humbly asked that if possible, I would like this nomination to proceed. I said the same and also apologized on the DYK template [15]. And I will be glad if you want to review this nomination. I didn't know you are involved with DYK. Regards, Steve Quinn (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit later and I just realized something regarding Tryptofish, or any one else, shaping hooks. I think there is a philosophical point that should not be overlooked, Do we editors shape the hook, or does the hook shape us? An academic paper might be the product of attempting to answer these questions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Related to your discussion on Tryptofish's talk page [16] , and by YOUR popular demand, there is now a Wikipedia article entitled (wait for it) (drumroll please!) "Gen Z stare." Feel free to jump in and add content here. In fact, that would be much appreciated as I don't know how much time I have for editing within the next few days. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Quinn and Tryptofish: There's been a huge uptick in articles about this subject. The i Paper has a great new opinion piece about the subject by columnist Rose O'Sullivan.[17] It's one of the best I've seen so far because it is written by a zoomer and explains the phenomenon perfectly to those who still don't get it. You should be able to read the link I posted up above in your browser (hint: toggle reader view). Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nickie Wang gives a shorter, but more academic-like treatment of the idea in the Manila Standard.[18] It's really well done, as she covers all the major points in a little over five paragraphs. It's perfect. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More recent coverage: Samantha Chery, "Why the Gen Z stare has every generation talking". The Washington Post. [19] Chery offers concrete examples of the stare from popular culture, like a scene from The White Lotus. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two new articles in The Advertiser (Adelaide), but I'm not sure that's a reliable source. It's too bad because the articles by Cassidy Pearce and Lynton Grace are pretty good, but they do seem more tabloid-like than not. I thought some of the ideas Grace wrote about were fairly relevant. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, apparently people have been talking about this idea for a while now, but it only was given a name last week. The new film Eddington (2025), which was made in 2024, apparently has a scene about the Gen Z stare, at least according to WaPo film critic Ann Hornaday in a July 16 review. ("Modern-day western spurred by covid"). This is something I've been trying to pursue. I suspect the Gen Z stare has been in the media a lot, but going by other names. Still looking into it. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks very much. I've been wanting to finish my DYK stuff on that other article. But my time on Wikipedia has been occupied with the stuff related to the Gen Z stare, including the Wikipedia article itself.
Viriditas, it seems you saw the rocket ship taking off that an article on this topic would be - based on your brief comments on Tryptofish's talk page here. Take a look at the number of page-views since this article was created here. You should wear a seat belt because, otherwise, you will probably fall over in your chair. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, sorry if I gave the wrong impression. The number that I quoted above (or whatever) is the number of page views since the creation of the article - not for a single day. The number I gave was for six or seven days. Here is the link for that: [21]. The page views for the "3.5% rule" is currently 34,887. So the "3.5% rule" still has more than "Gen Z stare." Here is the link for that [22] ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's craziness, and with an irrational rationale. That editor needs to read at least some of the content policies and guidelines before they start PRODing or AfDjng. They should attempt creating some articles first. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've definitely been noticing a pattern, that looks new to me, of deletion arguments based on something that is not in policy, but that would sound reasonable to the general public who aren't familiar with Wikipedia P&G (not going to say more, WP:BEANS). I've been looking online for any kind of organizing, but haven't found it. In my opinion, some of this is coming from the Heritage Foundation looking to gin up sentiment that "Wikipedia publishes junk". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you were talking about Powell and T-rump, and I was too dumb to figure that out. (But at least I should get some cred for my Barbie-related comments here (second part).) Yes, I get it now. Myself, I'm enjoying the Epstein stuff more, and closely following the under-reported health issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone still needs to watch Eddington! A screenshot can be used in Gen Z stare as we have critical commentary pointing to it. Side note: Pedro Pascal in in almost every film. Lucky guy to be at the top of his career like this. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it says it will stream on August 12. BTW, the American media is cowering in fear from Trump and is barely reporting anything Trump would find offensive. This lawsuit was filed yesterday, and not a single peep from the NYT, WaPo, Chron, LATimes, nothing, nada, zilch. This is why I'm getting most of my news from outside the US now. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish I also notice a pattern with these edits and I am curious about them - such as what is their preferred brand of SOCK? I know socks come in pairs at the department store, but after that you might only find one. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Did either of you watch "Sermon on the 'Mount" yet? I just watched it last night. There's a super funny scene that nobody is talking about that you kind of have to hit pause and rewind and watch in slo-mo. It's the scene of the president walking down a hall with portraits in the background. Frankly, I found it the funniest scene out of the entire episode. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My cable company seems to have censored one scene that mentions having a problem with Jesus in the schools. It's the intro right after the outro when Cartman forces Butters into a suicide pact (which is admittedly super funny because they decide to use an electric car to do it, which of course doesn't produce CO). PC Principal says: "Mr. Marsh, I've called you into my office because I understand that you have a problem with Jesus in our schools." The bolded part was muted by my cable company. I've gone back and watched it several times. It's muted. I only know what it says due to CC. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you follow Seth Andrews online, but he's a super cool guy and his podcasts are really interesting. I enjoy his call-in shows because you get a sense of the vibe across the country and even the world with international callers. Anyway, he did a podcast episode a few weeks back for fun that focused on his addiction to British TV shows. I don't think most Americans have any idea how much their media is censored compared to the UK. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Eddington will have to come to streaming services for anyone to get a screen shot, unless there is another way that I don't know about. I definitely want to see this movie. Looking forward to watching South Park's Sermon on the Mount when I get the chance. This episode seems to have caused a lot of buzz.
I'll check out Seth Andrews' podcasts to see what is up with that. I might call in and say that "your podcast was strongly recommended by Viriditas on Wikipedia. Take a look at his talk page for verification." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andrews is incredible. I can't recommend him enough. Something weird is currently going on with his podcast feeds so you may have to look online for the full set. The feed listing on iTunes is all messed up. I've seen this kind of thing happen before but I don't know what the fix is. You're better off finding the complete set of episodes either on spreaker or youtube. Those two sites are reliable and have the full feeds. No idea why iTunes is hosed. His decision to take a stand against MAGA and Trump cost him some percentage of listeners, but it's the reason I've become so supportive of him. He's a light in the darkness for a lot of people, and he's told his supporters who don't like the direction he's taken to take a hike. Nothing milquetoast or centrist about this guy. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
------ (new topic). It is amazing that editors are permitted to write plot summaries for novels and films without using reliable sources to do so. I think it is the same attitude regarding synopses for nonfiction books. The Eddington article on Wikipedia is a recent prime example.
This means that we are trusting every editor that writes one of these to be accurate based on their own recall or whatever. That is simply WP:OR. Or maybe the plot is paraphrased or summarized from publicist's materials, which is just as bad. I think I recall that Viriditas doesn't have a problem with this. Well, to each their own.
However, at some point I would like to have a Wikipedia-wide RFC and discussion about this. I don't know how this developed into an acceptable practice. I think we need to go back to the days where content needs to reflect what reliable sources have to say about a given topic. We do have guidelines and policies that say this is so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I hope you understand my strange sense of humor by now, but I read your comment in the tone and accent of Jack Karlson, who I hope you're familiar with at this point. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Quinn and Tryptofish:Eddington is available to stream now. I've got it queued up to watch, but I've been busy watching other things. I just re-watched Casablanca twice because I love it so much! In any case, if I can find the screenshot of the Gen Z stare in the film I will upload it. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're feeling better. I knew about Eddington, and am waiting for it to be free (I'm cheap about these things). What a coincidence, I rewatched Casablanca a few nights ago, too. I very much like to watch old movies. Here's looking at you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to put a list of my fave films together and I'm convinced that Casablanca is in the number one spot. It's just so well done in every aspect of the production. Now I'm trying to figure out what would be number two, and it's hard to come up with something. In terms of writing, The Man from Earth is definitely up there, but it's at best a B Movie, and that's fine. I would probably end up going with a screwball comedy of some kind. I've always loved His Girl Friday, but it's not really known for its production qualities, just its snappy repartee which is second to none. One film I have always enjoyed is My Man Godfrey so perhaps that might fill a top spot. One thing that I'm really curious about right now is finding the "best" Western film. I would love to hear some suggestions! Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I looked. A self-declared COI editor. Just WP:DENY about the financial thing, where you obviously have the source material on your side. About the personnel being "former", maybe that's valid, and it might be a good correction if there is sourcing. I'm not going to involve myself there, because I'm dealing with enough s—t as it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Day the Earth Stood Still is definitely up there, maybe on the top 10 or top 20, I don't know. I enjoyed Django Unchained but it left me physically sick and I can't imagine watching it again. And, I'm a huge Tarantino fan. It's a very difficult film to re-watch. Maybe Tryptofish can chime in and explain to me how some people can watch super-violent films over and over again. I can't seem to do it. I was able to re-watch the Kill Bill series because the violence is more theatrical and campy and less historical and reality-based. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas - Sorry to hear about your reaction to Django. Some people do have a reaction to realistically violent films. I think it is true the Django film holds no punches. I think it has to do with violence or the threat violence experienced in the past. I know of a couple of people who are very sensitive in this regard.
So, it is interesting that you are able make a distinction between KIll Bill and Django. I think the violence in Inglorious Bastards is as violent as Django in some scenes. I mean. Tarantino does get the point across when he wants to. Regarding Kill Bill, it is impressive that it is so good with that much violence. Tarantino is certainly the master in that he is able to make that work somehow. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't hurt that Kill Bill has some of the finest scenes ever made in cinematic history. Three scenes come immediately to mind: The rooftop showdown at the House of Blue Leaves; training with Pai Mei, and the Hattori Hanzo sword forging scene. Anyone who watches those three scenes and doesn't feel anything needs to check their pulse! Notice how violence has only a small role to play in each scene. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I know, but something that occurs to me is prompted by the mention of Inglorious Basterds: the victims of the violence there are the Nazis, who have it coming, whereas in Django there is threatened violence (pretty cringeworthy) against Django himself, who doesn't deserve it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also in Inglorious BastardsDjango Unchained, the scene where they threaten to bash the girl (at the dinner table), is, for me, an on the edge-of-my-seat gruesome. I guess it was when DiCaprio shattered that skull on his table, and the audience knows that the girl is next if "the guests" don't cooperate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, the violence in Inglorious Basterds was tough for me to watch as well, but I was able to view the film twice with no problems. The thing about Django that bothered me the most is that I wanted to do something! I felt powerless to stop what was happening or to prevent it. I don't like that feeling. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you know that. And if that is what Tarentino intended, then that feeling represents how the enslaved persons felt during that period in our history. Quite a genius effect! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I made it through half of Eddington but had to take a break and do other things. I didn't see any specific scenes devoted to the Gen Z stare in the first half, although there was a brief scene that could be interpreted that way. I will come back to it if nothing turns up in the second half. I was unaware that Ari Aster was writer and director before diving in. His script is super ambitious and tries to fit in every social and cultural trope from the pandemic era, which IMO, is a tall order and not really conducive to the genre of a single film, but would work perfectly in terms of a limited miniseries. All I can say is that as an audience member, there's only one director I know of that can get away with stuffing six hours of material inside of a two and a half hour film, and that's the one and only David Fincher. Now, here's what I'm thinking: what if Ari Aster had only wrote the film and Fincher had directed? Anyway, I will finish it up tomorrow, but I'm feeling vicarious embarrassment for Aster at this point. This could have been one of the best films (or miniseries) of all time. But, it's not. I should point out, my perception is slightly colored by my visceral reaction to Aster's filmmaking. I am not a fan of emotional horror, so this kind of thing doesn't resonate with me at all. Viriditas (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Ari Aster. Midsommar was very skillfully made, but I experienced it as almost nonstop cringe, similarly to how you described your reactions to some of Tarentino's films. And Beau is Afraid has moments, mostly at the beginning, that struck me as creatively absurdist, but overall it was way too overpacked and long. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good review! I should note with a caveat that the work of M. Night Shyamalan is one of the few exceptions to emotional horror that works for me. Shyamalan is such a perfectionist on screen that even his worst films are great! Every frame, every scene in a Shyamalan film means something; nothing goes to waste. I got the sense that Aster doesn't adhere to this aesthetic, and for some reason it bothered me. Anyway, I'm going to finish Eddington now. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I finished the second half of the film, which admittedly is 10x better than the first half. However, this is still, IMO, a terrible film. There is no semblance of a Gen Z stare anywhere, neither in the first or second half, so the writer who made that claim was making a reference that was a metaphor of some kind that I failed to understand. I am at a loss as to what Ari Aster was thinking when they made this film. One thing that stands out is how poorly composed each frame and each scene is, as if Aster doesn't care about composing shots. The lighting and sound are good, so that wasn't a problem. Also, the acting is great. The editing and direction are terrible. I would not recommend this film to anyone, and I can't understand who the audience is supposed to be for this production. It's as if Aster made the film only for himself. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This new one may be somewhat up your alley, or alleys of some of your talk readers. I finally pushed the present version live from user draft after two months. I still have... lots of sources on talk to get through. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I love this kind of topic. It really is up my alley. I'm working on a topic adjacent to this which I hope to go live with in the next month. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I think there's some of it in the sources still on talk, and I have another tranche sitting in Word about mosaic impacts around non-US government (and a mix of other random links I'd squirreled away). There's still a few topics I need to build out too in there. You saw John Oliver last night, similar theme/domain? That's what motivated me to pull the trigger today. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear stranger,
Just seeking if you can help. I've created White Flight in Gary, which was immediately put up for speedy deletion. I was then told it wasn't verifiable enough, so I've gone all over the place trying to get additional verification for the apparent opinion pieces. It was then put up for deletion, but no consensus was reached, so it's going again.
To that end - I just need to know if I am barking up the wrong tree so am seeking an objective opinion from an active editor.
Personally, I think it's worthy of an independent article because of how they managed the scale of racial change in the city, the role of the first ever black mayor of a major city, and the racial tropes used to encourage flight - as well as the remarkable effort to change the way to allow the incorporation of another city to accommodate white flight. There are a plethora of academic articles, documentaries and other media on the specific subject of White flight and Gary, so I would have though notability is established ... but I've put a chunk of work into this, so I'm far from objective.
So, you thoughts for (a.) if it should stay, and (b.) if so, how to make it better are welcome. I've saught engagement but it's been challenging. Berocca Addict (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it should be worked out in draft space. Regardless of its merits, it’s not ready for prime time in main space just yet. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 August 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Jonik, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a community mural inspired by John Jonik's pet duck was destroyed by a cleanup crew who mistook it for graffiti? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Jonik. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Jonik), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thanks. The article definitely got me interested in the history of Philadelphia's art scene, much of which has been lost or poorly funded. Imagine how much art we could fund with the US $200,000,000 earmarked for a White House ballroom. The Manchurian Cantaloupe and Apartheid Clyde wasted US $21,700,000,000 with the DOGE boondoggle, including US $50,000,000 spent on operations alone. We have all the money we need to fund the arts, education, healthcare, environmental regulation and enforcement, and every other piece of progressive legislation we've been told there's no money to fund. We are being robbed in broad daylight and told to keep quiet. "All units, all units, be advised — BOLO in progress for a crime in progress at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Suspect still on scene. Proceed to location." Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About that last part of what you said, I reverted that before seeing your post here. Now, if only the ballroom were fictional. I think a good name for it would be The Mush Room. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the photo that was released yesterday of the completed White House Rose Garden project, where they paved over the garden under the direction of Carrot Caligula? There was a theory being discussed a few decades ago that argued that conservatives are motivated by a strong hatred for nature based on their misreading of Dominion theology into the Christian Bible, which replaces stewardship of nature with domination, a position that has led some religious leaders in the extractive industries to fuse free market fundamentalism with the intentional depletion of natural resources, believing that it is only by destroying nature, by cutting down every last tree, polluting every last drop of water, and destroying the biosphere, that they can bring the eschaton into existence and hasten the return of Jesus Christ. These people have the nuclear launch codes. I'm having difficulty seeing the difference between the U.S. and Iran at this point. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the roses were not paved over, just the grass paths between the rose beds, and with the justification that women's high heels sink into the grass. Then again, nuclear subs have been deployed over a tweet. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to rising temperatures from climate change, the District experiences the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. The UHI effect occurs in areas where sunlight is absorbed and retained by paved surfaces and roofs. In dense urban areas, this absorbed heat is combined with heat released by technologies such as air conditioners and automobiles to create an “island” that is significantly warmer than surrounding suburban or rural areas. The presence of trees and vegetation can help keep temperatures cool by deflecting radiation from the sun, providing shade, and releasing moisture into the atmosphere. Neighborhoods with fewer trees and greater concentrations of impervious surfaces (or water-resistant surfaces such as pavement, buildings, and roads) absorb and retain more heat..Heat is disproportionately experienced across the District. Some neighborhoods have fewer trees or more pavement than others, causing the UHI effect to leave some neighborhoods almost 17° F hotter than others...Trees are effective at lowering temperatures, and innovative designs—such as green roofs, energy efficient buildings, reflective surfaces, pervious pavements, and green infrastructure—can help keep our city cool..."[24]Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 August 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Balloon in Mid-Air, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that A Balloon in Mid-Air(pictured) depicts a flight by artist Jules Tavernier with aeronaut Étienne Buislay, who died in a balloon accident a week later? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Balloon in Mid-Air. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, A Balloon in Mid-Air), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Ann Dunham has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I haven't looked at this article in more than 10 years - I'll see if I can make any sense of where it is now, but no promises.Tvoz/talk03:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvoz: good to hear from you. I think the article currently passes or is close to passing the reassessment. You wouldn't have to do much, maybe just give it a look see. If you could randomly spot check at least one source that would also help. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today's story mentions four singers which I all heard, soprano (whose birthday would have been today) and tenor were soloists with my choir in Hannover, and alto and tenor (married, singers of NDR Chor) were the soloists in the Verdi Requiem of my choir in Idstein, in 2010. Enjoy listening to soprano in a Telemann aria, and also pics of a hike on a hot day above Lorch, on In vino veritas trail, sounding similar to your user name ;) - Any thought about the discussion mentioned on my talk under "call for collaboration"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... or to today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I found today a youtube of an aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sang Dona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gerda. I appreciate everything you do. I'm sorry you run into so much conflict on DYK. I've heard several different writers discuss this kind of problem in the past. There's really no resolution to it, because one type of person is going to perceive hooks and the DYK process a certain way, and another type is going to perceive it another way. Philosopher Allan Watts used to call this the "prickles and goo" problem. It is fundamentally an opposing yet complementary force of reality that can't be overcome, surpassed, beaten, extinguished, or even transcended. The trick is to adapt and remain flexible; the branch that bends in the wind survives the storm. Martial artist Bruce Lee famously wrote, "Be formless ... shapeless, like water." Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(waking up) I am flexible, but not open to composer x wrote so many pieces, composer y wrote so many pieces, and - after six years on the topic - am disappointed that this kind of hook is still even suggested. (Dürer made so many paintings, da Vinci made so many paintings.) It's an insult towards x and y. Can you translate that please to the suggester who doesn't hear me? Or perhaps better: suggest something that hits the specific character and spirit of the subject, or even better the subject's contributions? (Starting for Chuliá?) - No, I didn't hear the below, but you made me curious. - Shchedrin is on the main page now (who also wrote many pieces ...), - he came to the RMF with his wife. I wish his bio had something after the 2010 opera (that I missed). - But today is the day of Monteverdi's Vespers. We sang it on 1 September, the day it was dedicated to the pope, - that was sheer coincidence because the many soloists could get together only that day, sort of inconvenient as so close after summer vacation. It was the greatest of all concerts I was in. Lieselotte Fink, 2nd soprano alongside her teacher Elisabeth Scholl, sang in the choir alto on Saturday. I met her as a baby on her mother's lap during choir rehearsals. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I forgot to ask, did you ever get a chance to listen to Wind Takes Flight? I'm on my fourth listen now and it's really starting to grow on me. I hope more people get a chance to give it a try as it's quite good. BTW, I discovered something quite funny about the music industry while writing the article about the album. I should have been more aware of this, but apparently the marketing phenomenon of Twin films also applies to "Twin albums". It turns out that an unnamed, high profile singer, producer, and record label tried to steal the thunder from Julia Sinclair and Marijn Cinjee by quickly releasing a similar but more commercial arrangement, effectively preempting the release of Wind Takes Flight by many months. When I discovered this, I was disappointed that so-called professional musicians would do this to other musicians, but I suppose this kind of thing happens all the time in every industry, even the arts. Incredibly dog eat dog for them to do this. Notice, I haven't mentioned their names, but it really turned me off when I found out about it. And they had the nerve to defend their actions in the press saying they had planned the release for ten years. Yeah, right. It's one thing to compete with other musicians by releasing similar material, it's another to completely lie about it. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 August 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Autocratic legalism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that autocratic legalism allows leaders to use the law to undermine liberal democracy while appearing to uphold it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Autocratic legalism. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Autocratic legalism), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
@BINK Robin: The change looks good. Let's give it a day or so to see if anyone objects or can poke holes in it before implementing it. It will also give me time to look closer as well. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Viriditas, thanks for those changes last month! I wanted to let you know I made another request for the History section of the Tides Foundation article in case you were interested in taking a look. Cheers BINK Robin (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Listening now (didn't manage while writing on a Bach piece last night). Spheric - weightless - sublime - peaceful - I don't understand the words but it doesn't matter. I love her voice. - Brings me back to DYK, because the nominator of my first DYK (who introduced me to it, - I don't think I even knew there was a main page) had suggested "otherworldly" and I didn't like an esoteric connection to a living composer, and I argued. That was for six hours, back in 2009, when they managed four sets a day, taking practically everything. My record from nominating to in a queue was 10 minutes, for my third DYK I believe, - they had to quickly fill an empty spot. - Today Canto General, and the final hook is the original a bit improved. How could we have avoided the in-between, which cost energy that could have gone into creation of 10 articles (rough estimate)? - People find different interesting. Shouldn't that lead to a broad range of offerings, not limitations? The less they know about a subject the more they can learn, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
too tired to read that in detail, - I may be too German, not wanting to grab attention no matter by what but inform about the subject as precisely as possible, which - in the Canto case - may grab attention, while one of the alternatives, about the use of the stadium of the premiere that was cancelled, would not only be completely tangential to the composition but also kind of let that regime win, - therefore no possibility for "compromise". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that's perfectly fine! The German model has been incredibly influential, even before WWII. I was trying to argue this point on the DYK talk page, but nobody seemed interested. In other words, we should be able to take your approach and tweak it slightly to conform to Wikipedia. I think that's all you have to do, really. Just take that extra step. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"conform to Wikipedia"? - you mean to the 2025 Wikipedia which isn't the 2018 Wikipedia, let alone the 2009 Wikipedia described above? - It changed, and I haven't changed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're funny, for a German! I mean conform to the house style (which changes all the time across every aspect of Wikipedia) of DYK. I think you know this. In other words, keep being you, write the hooks the way you want, BUT change them in the final editing phase to conform to DYK best practices. You've had many people who you trust and respect tell you this, so you can't pretend it's not something you haven't heard before. To be even more straightforward, look at the differences between the German and American media models on the page I linked to up above. "Conforming" to DYK house style means, essentially, fusing these two disparate approaches together. Prickles (German precision) AND goo (American sensationalism): "There are basically two kinds of philosophy. One's called prickles, the other's called goo. And prickly people are precise, rigorous, logical. They like everything chopped up and clear. Goo people like it vague. For example, in physics, prickly people believe that the ultimate constituents of matter are particles. Goo people believe it's waves. And in philosophy, prickly people are logical positivists, and goo people are idealists. And they're always arguing with each other, but what they don't realize is neither one can take his position without the other person. Because you wouldn't know you advocated prickles unless there was someone advocating goo. You wouldn't know what a prickle was unless you knew what a goo was. Because life isn't either prickles or goo, it's either gooey prickles or prickly goo." —Alan Watts. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - Let's practise next nom. Bedtime. Read the Canto discussion again perhaps. If there was an invitation to adapt and polish the first hook, I missed it. I understood that collaboration among two giants in their fields was regarded no interesting news on Wikipedia. Days later we learned that those who said so didn't know they where two giants. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's somewhat of a separate problem, and it's quite common. It often comes down to age differences and disciplines. People from one set aren't aware of the other set. The answer is to write a hook that gently introduces the information that anyone can understand without having the background knowledge. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Gerda, I'm always willing to "practice" with you, but I'm not going to engage in a days to months long discussion. You've been told by many other people that your DYKs become a time-sink because you aren't taking critical commentary about your hooks on board or under consideration. Nobody should have to commit more than a few minutes to an hour to this. Please be considerate of other people's time constraints. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the practice with the Mexican soprano. I was completely wrong about article history for her, working on two many articles at the same time. Her article was created and then expanded after her death by an editor who put since a retired template up. I don't know if they took some from the German Wikipedia, - the Spanish article is just poor. Perhaps the other started to translate from there and then from de? Or from sources. Anyway, I expanded just a bit from sources the other found. No time, with two more giants nominated, Ruth Weiss and the conductor. - Perhaps we can delete the chronology question from the article talk? I wouldn't mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A soprano pictured on DYK, a soprano and a composer and a bassoonist on RD, and a composer with the pic of the day: a good day for classical music! - Lourdes Ambriz is nominated, - what do you think? - perhaps one comment and then unwatch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Returning from a wonderful concert (Mahler's Fifth): thank you for comments in the nom! Can you please put comments regarding the article on the article talk? - I nominated a FAC today, - a bit away from opera, - patience please or do it yourself? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you were reverted or why infoboxes are allowed on some classical bios like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart but not Joseph Haydn. I also don't understand why this nonsense has caused all sorts of debates and controversies for 13 years and why some people have even left the project over it. I'm sorry for my ignorance. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask the one who reverted, seriously. - Arbcom said it has to be discussed on each article, which tells me that Arbcom isn't thinking, at least not for that topic. Debates have become rare, which pleases me. People have left the project, see GFHandel. (That was because of Bach.) Others left and returned. All arguments were on the table for Mozart, I think. - My story today is about the principal violin of the Concentus Musicus; she would have been 95 OTD. I felt connected when the second oboist of our recent concert, of Haydn's Stabat Mater, said that he built an English horn for his performance of the work with the Concentus Musicus. - Concert weekend pictured in "places". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the opera editor (and published writer) who left a few years back. He wrote a book on the history of Jewish music. He left because he didn’t want infoboxes in the opera articles. You remember. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I miss Smerus, and Mendelsson's sister has no infobox because I respect his wish. I don't understand leaving because of such a minor issue, though, and there may be other reasons. Also, he is still around, regularly blanking his page. He gave me private advice about what to visit in Bratislava, and I will remember with thanks (that I was included in a guided tour for students of the underground Jewish cemetery). - I also remember with thanks that Tim riley and I wrote The Company of Heaven together, premiered OTD (and am sad that our friendship ended over such a minor issue.) - I remember with thanks that Brian Boulton provided peer review for Mass in B minor structure, - we performed the piece OTD in 2013. I miss him most, and his way to try compromise. The Haydn discussion is on a good way, I think, away from edit warring to discussing parameters. Let's keep hoping. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Herbert Brandl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Herbert Brandl once created a large mountain painting in about 15 minutes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Herbert Brandl. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Herbert Brandl), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Tell you what, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Art is much easier to write about than train robberies, which is currently giving me a headache. You do fine work but you need to loosen up a bit and relax. You saw City Landscape with your own eyes. Use that to your advantage and draw on that authenticity to inform your writing. Walk people through what you saw and experienced, but in the framework of the sources informing your prose. When you do it that way, the article will literally write itself. Just relax and approach it that way. It works. You might be surprised. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much about train robberies in your user contribution history in recent days, so I don't know how to offer help, but good luck. I don't run into a lot of 2004 people and wish I could find out a bit more about you. All I can tell is that you seem to be flaunting your cheekbones on your user page. "Flaunt em if you got em" I always say. I hope those aquariumm fish did not cause them too much pain.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Yeah, you got the AirshipJungleman treatment. I would guess they are correct 70% of the time. They have done the same thing with articles I’ve worked on before, and they usually make good edits. There have been instances where I have disagreed, however. In this particular case, your best bet is to 1) let it go for now because your article is going to be on the main page soon; 2) pick one of the most important edits you disagree with and start a very brief discussion on the talk page of the article and ping Airship. If it’s important enough I may make a comment. Otherwise, the best approach right now at this moment is to take a breath and let it go. If there’s truly important material that should be restored, work it out on talk with very brief comments and concerns. I am likely to support restoring condensed versions of the material in some way, but figure it out on talk. Keep in mind that Airship is trying to help and improve the article even if it doesn’t feel that way in the heat of the moment. Also remember that the art of refinement comes not from what you add but from what you remove. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, 'Eartian' is not "misspelled" because I coined the word myself, and I certainly did not do so via Wikipedia, but elsewhere over a decade ago. You are correct, however; it is indeed a part of sci-fi (a cartoon I created, Atarian Conquest). It was coined on the basis that Martians are from Mars, Venusians from Venus, etc. "Earthling" does not fit this naming convention and comes off as stereotypical, and I do not know of a better, proper alternative (Earthese? Earthican? ¿Mundeño/a?). So, I even use the term in everyday life to describe someone or something from Earth or having to do with the planet.
However, this should not be taken as an argument or any kind of debate. I support your edit, but, again, this is "just a friendly clarification". Kehkou (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Not sure why the word was added to Wikipedia. In other developments, I see you work on pepper articles. I'm currently growing the Mad Hatter F1, which is perfect for my climate and produces an excessive number of fruits. I would like to add mention of it on the Bishop's Crown page. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to hear from a fellow pepper head. I have only a "test garden" of four plants, two 'Big Jims' and two Numex 6-4's. The yield was good but not excessive. I will grow a full-sized garden next year. Kehkou (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember when all the tech bros were moving to Silicon Beach, maybe around 2005, 2006? It was a big deal. I spent some time there in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Fun place. Still prefer the Bay Area. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My story today is about a woman and her husband who played Bach's Sonatina for us (Rheingau Musik Festival, long ago) on an upright piano, and it made me cry, and I still remember. Can you believe that this was a real DYK, in 2019? - not saying what she did at age four, or how many times she played some piece, or what she did before turning to the piano ;) - But - bzzt - a mezzo soprano hook made it to prep without problems and discussions, - miracles still happen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, no time yet, being in two Bach cantata reviews on top of five recent deaths articles in one week. - One of them is my story today, - there are youtubes of all three acts of the 100-year-old opera with a young Abbado. - He had a DYK in 2014. I wonder what would be possible today, ... that he was on stage for the 2000th performance 40 years after he began? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... and a good one for Monday, about a mezzo as a thinking person, DYK? - see also video. (The nomination wasn't by me, which probably helped to a mercifully short review.) I didn't see her, but the Carmen production at the Bastille Opéra that she was in last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am proud to have brought two performing women to the main page, and thank you so much for expanding one of them substantially! - Sadly, death kept both from performing more, one sooner, the other much later. If you have little time just listen to the one who died young and see if it touches you (in today's story, - I don't want to sprinkle youtube links outside my user pages). Latest pics from a day to the opera in Frankfurt, and afterwards (because train service is only once an hour) a lovely stroll along the Main river with illumination and the moon reflected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the problem I keep bringing up that nobody wants to address, much like the proverbial elephant. In other words, how do you balance the American penchant for sensationalism, which DYK relies on as an interpretive reading of the interesting criterion, with the more European style of thoughtful, considered, and tempered investigation and discussion? When you're ready to figure out an answer let me know. As I've said previously, this requirement to insert a kind of sensational, clickbait-like "hook" into every DYK can't be escaped. The reason you and others rightfully complain about how the standards changed and shifted is due to the influence of social media that washed like a tidal wave across this and every other project. There's a world-wide dumbing-down occurring, as you've said many times. May I refer to you as Cassandra from now on? Do you like that name? Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking of clarinet, I think I discussed a wonderful clarinet piece with you a while back, but I can't remember the name of it. Do you remember? Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reply to first: I'd think of how Jessye Norman performed Cassandre at the Met ;) (seen live on tv, in the house of friends because I had no tv - it's that friend's birthday, conductor of Bach and Vivaldi as mentioned on my talk) - More practically: could you think of a hook pleasing me and the others? - I remember the situation of the father composing in memory of his son, and more drastic versions up to boy's killing were discussed, but in the end mine was more or less taken.
reply to second, after edit conflict: not immediately, - I remember the singer with the electronics. I don't remember the name of the wonderful Cassandre I saw on stage in Frankfurt, but will look it up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had to look it up just to see it for myself. How funny is that! Now you've got me really interested. I am beginning to understand why I have a gap in my understanding about this subject and why your opinion so fascinates me. I was away from Wikipedia from mid-February 2016 to late-February 2019, a little over three years. Apparently, during that time, quite unbeknowst to me, Wikipedia changed a lot, and as you demonstrate in spades, so too did the interpretation of the interestingness criterion. What year did you notice the change, if I may ask? Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was creeping in, we couldn't give a date to it. I had noms arguing with someone who believes that opera is not interesting in 2019, but it became serious only after Yoninah died (end of 2020, known only 2021). Today's story has a 2020 review by her, and you can see that she was not uncritical and went for concise wording, but she was wide open for different topics. She was Jewish but open for Christian and Muslim ... topics, and that is what I miss in today's team. Check out Yoninah's talk for hooks with her in mind. - The problems that led to planting the "perceived as interesting ..." instead of just "interesting" feature in the guidelines came from looking at views and only at views, and discarding what doesn't result in views: pro "Nazi" and "sexy", contra anything subtle. - Back to the q: Wanda Perdelwitzis still on the main page, had a viewcount of five digits yesterday. In a hook, I would want to say something about what she stood for, and not (or at least not only) that she died and left a small boy, however many views that might generate, - in other words: she had her views, lets add to information worth knowing. Your turn ;) - On a day of happy memory, I didn't make a story about her, - perhaps tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just listened to Earth Vigil (2024) by Robert Kyr featuring Conspirare.[25] Perhaps you have heard of them? The liner notes describe the work as an "environmental oratorio" for a soprano and baritone soloist. The music and performance is okay, but what most intrigued me was the recording. It was made at St. Martin's Lutheran Church in Austin, Texas, and the acoustics are just out of this world. The sound engineer is Randall Squires and he's done a tremendous job. There are multiple layers to the voices like a cake or pastry. Compare this recording of Earth Vigil to a recent broadcast of Carmina Burana by Carl Orff, which was performed in March 2023 by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Chorus in the Orchestra Hall at Symphony Center.[26] Both the symphony and chorus gave one of the best performances of the work that I've ever heard, but the acoustics were so bad that it made listening difficult. Imagine my surprise when I go to the wiki article to read 455 words about how the acoustics have been a problem for 60-70 years in that space. Something needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I'll get to it later, sounds interesting. - Not interesting (to me) a DYK hook today saying about a singer that she was unhappy with her performance (in a competition although she came in one on top). It is plain common that a singer is unhappy with her performance, nothing special, let alone personal. (After each concert, our conductor has to tell has that we should remember what was good, not the little bits that went wrong.) - I didn't make a story about the actress who left the main page soon, and someone else nominated her for DYK. You could review ;) - I made a story for Bernhard Klee, - tough, so many things one could say. The image is of a place with good acoustics which was five minutes walk away from where I lived when I studied, but I didn't hear him, - in both periods he was head of that orchestra (rather rare) I lived somewhere else. The music on yt also has two singers, and "von der Erde" sounds environmental ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:John Neulinger c. 1989.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The more I'm realizing I'm much better at coming up with/finding missing articles, building out, curating and constructing articles, by an order of magnitude, than I am at fine-tuning them like we're doing again. Did you read some of the much older versions of Sentient? They were more overstuffed than a turducken. I'm much more Stephen King without an editor than Stephen King with one. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)23:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, that's a normal reaction. The fine-tuning process is difficult because it requires deleting the parts we are most fond of in our writing. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference being (thanks for teaching me here and Sentient) is that with fiction, the sky's generally the limit. Carve it up, dice it up. If it works, it's art. Professional writing depends on audience. This is nearly a legendarium to mind carefully, between sourcing and then all the site requirements. Killing our favorites is easy when we're in god mode. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)23:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, we need a separate article on all the fake videos that have come from the Trump admin and Trump-related campaigns and Trump family members. It's going to take a lot of work to put that together. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots." Wikipedia should be more proactive about asserting facts and evidence in the face of a billionaire-funded, post-truth, Trumpian firehose of falsehood that has no signs of ever stopping. Who knew it would be a revolutionary act to report facts? Heritage knew, which is why they have levied terrorism accusations against anyone sharing facts and have Wikipedia in their crosshairs. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of fiction, I'm currently rereading The Andromeda Strain (1969) and I just watched the 1971 film. I was previously unaware (or didn't recognize) of how incredibly ahead of his time Crichton was when he wrote it. Both the book and the film, quite surprisingly, still hold up. That's quite a feat. Too bad he was a climate denying crank in the end. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great terse book, and the film (it's been years) I recall nailed that claustrophobic slow boil vibe well. Check out Sphere. The film was OK, but the book IMHO is vastly overlooked. Timeline as well; it's a goofier work in ways, but it's stupidly tight and fun. The physics are neat. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)00:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Sphere and I've seen the film. I think the pace of the film was too slow and plodding, and it had more of a horror-film vibe than science fiction, but in the end it kind of worked as psychological scifi-horror. I remember people hated it when it came out. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might have seen that in the theater. The impression that I got is not just that it should never have been made, but that everyone was miscast, even the director. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61: Thank you, it means a great deal to me that there is at least one person out there who appreciates the article. I have to say, writing it was very time-consuming, which I didn't expect. Every time I thought I was finished, a new thread would emerge. All told, I think it took me about a month to put everything together, but I had to take a lot of breaks in between, so it was several months of ruminating as well, thinking about how to put it all together.
I was initially motivated to write the article because I kept running into people online (and in published commentary) who didn't know anything about the backstory of the flood. I thought that was really weird. How could a famous photo become stripped of its history?
I discovered several things while trying to answer that question. Before this photo was ever taken, Margaret Bourke-White was the subject of persistent, low-level attacks against her that came to a head in 1933, mostly because she was a woman trying to pursue a career in a male-dominated field. Some of the attacks are unbelievably vicious, and there are only a few sources that I'm aware of that cover them in some detail. I intend to follow up that thread in a new, separate article about one of her works from the time when the attacks took place.
Another thing that emerged was the opposition post-1930, due to her trips to the Soviet Union as a photographer and her work documenting poverty in the United States. The incessant red-baiting advanced to government spying and interception of her mail and phone calls. They never found a single piece of incriminating evidence against her.
There were also the attacks from other writers and the intelligentsia regarding her work with Erskine Caldwell, which strangely persisted well into the 1970s, after her death. Although I have no evidence, my reading of the sources indicates that some people went out of their way to trash her reputation and her legacy as part of a larger campaign. Recent research by scholars has explored her work in South Africa in 1949 and 1950, documenting the apartheid conditions for American audiences.
I also did not go into the major controversy between advocates of the New Deal and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) that the photograph illustrates as an allusion. It's a huge topic and is best covered elsewhere in detail, but I do think more could be said about it in this article as a way to fill out the missing history, and it's the only major missing element that I'm a bit sour about.
One other aspect that could be explored a bit more is the nature of photography in situ as documentary photography versus political photography. There are some critics who believed Bourke-White was promoting a political point with this set of photos (New Deal vs. NAM). But having looked into this for some time, I think the reality is that these billboards were everywhere due to the NAM campaign, and that the most neutral and dispassionate photographer would be hard pressed to remove them from the frame as the flood refugee line is framed by the billboard at every angle.
In other words, Bourke-White was in the right place at the right time, and in spite of her critics, the political allusions were coincidental, as difficult as that is to believe. But if you are familiar with the arts literature, then you know that artists in general look for coincidence as a kind of muse. This is incredibly common.
The composer for the film The Batman addressed this very topic when people asked him how it is that the bass line in his score naturally segues into a Nirvana song, creating a seamless, overlapping medley of sorts. The answer is that you work with that kind of endless, always replenishing reservoir of chance, coincidence, and serendipity as an artist, and I think that's exactly what Bourke-White did with this photo. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 12 October 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lourdes Ambriz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lourdes Ambriz, singing voice of Belle in the Spanish version of Beauty and the Beast, became the artistic director of the Mexican national opera? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lourdes Ambriz. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lourdes Ambriz), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
People haven't felt listened to for years and it's very frustrating to have people continually say that they're listening but not actually be doing so.
Hi Viriditas, just wanted to ping you in case you are interested in taking a look at another one of my requests for Tides Foundation. I also posted to WikiProject Organizations. No worries if you're not available! Appreciate all your time so far. BINK Robin (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 27 October 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carl Borgmann, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the departure of Carl Borgmann from the University of Vermont ended 17 years of scientists serving consecutive terms as president? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Borgmann. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Carl Borgmann), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
Do not use this project if you care about facts or history! Tall tales and creepy critters all over the place. Head chef serves up plates of steaming bull in the tradition of Chez Fox News. Much better WikiProjects down the street who will treat you with respect and not lie to your face. Bill was delivered to table with strange doodles by owner all over the check in bright crayon resembling Turing patterns drawn by Keith Haring; establishment is one sandwich short of a picnic. Unusual sounds coming from kitchen that cannot be described in human terms. I could swear I saw Rod Serling standing in the corner of the joint smoking a cigarette but my mind was probably playing tricks on me after consuming one of their apps. Caveat emptor! Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Uzgalis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Robert Uzgalis made the Leaning Tower of Pisa straight? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Uzgalis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Uzgalis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
It's funny, I only realized the unintentional double entendre weeks after I had submitted the DYK. Speaking of controversial comedy, Jon Stewart's recent defense of Joe Rogan is causing quite a stir. Also, did you see my comments regarding Narutohinata5's recent hook about sitting on a cake? I thought it was hilarious (my concern arose from Better Call Saul's popularization of cake sitting on the show as a comedic bit), but I think I upset them when I pointed it out. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, scroll to the bottom (it's ALT1a). My comments about it are on Naruto's talk page. As you can tell, I'm trying to avoid pinging them by linking to it as I think I've troubled them enough. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I know I'm getting old. I wasn't consciously making that reference (but of course I'm always happy to take a compliment, no matter how undeserved). It's just a phrase that I remember, somehow. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
today in memory of a friend who would have been 110, singing Brahms conducted by his son. A 2012 DYK, main page then linked. Today, it would stop after art collector if not sooner, or only say what he did at at age four, or that he loved dogs ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SOFDA (Sarcasm of the Day Award) goes to Gerda Arendt, for her attempts to rid the world of the mistaken stereotype that Germans aren't funny. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The woman singing at the very bottom right is more expressive and into the music than anyone else in the entire choir. She has a lot of energy. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking! I will tell her when I meet her. I don't think you could say much about expressiveness for those in the last row ;) The Hungarian double bassist in the foreground became the conductor's son-in-law, met in June, when his wife, an oboist with the MDR Orchestra, played a movement from a Mozart concerto with her father at the piano for a private gathering. She is pictured with her instrument for Reger-Chor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get back to the woman in at the bottom right. She seems to know the entire piece by memory. That's amazing. Or is she reading a screen somewhere? Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the laughter, Viriditas (topic af my FAC, trying again)! - Thank you, Doug, for the update. I didn't want to offer you "food" on your talk after what you wrote there about not enjoying it, but perhaps look at my story with the gorgeous pic, which makes me smile so many times looking at the details, with the artist and her husband at the end of the table, - perhaps share with your wife ;) - The video 2 has her real profile juxtaposed to the profile she drew of herself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comments on the talk page for the Pleasant Valley War -> Neutrality. Gladwell "Toney" Richardson is a completely reliable source. "My friend doesn't like Richardson" is not a good enough reason to question citing him and the cited article is 100% historical. This has been discussed and a consensus has been reached to keep the citation. Please don't remove citations to reliable sources. Anne N. Cephaly (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, Richardson was a fiction writer who is primarily known for telling "tall tales".[29] In 2025, most academics recognize that his so-called non-fiction was made up. Sadly, some people still haven’t got the memo, because as that linked article notes up above, his tall tales were incorporated by some people into historical narratives, just as you are doing. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia. You are of course free to find other sources that are reliable. I hope that makes sense. Previously, in the other discussion you are referring to here, I mentioned historian John Boessenecker as having dismissed the use of Richardson (aka Kildare). Boessenecker writes, "Like many of Richardson's writings, it contains numerous fictional elements and is wildly inaccurate". The author then goes on to show an example of the inaccuracy. Your above comment referring to Boessenecker as "my friend" indicates that to me that you don't understand what is meant by reliable sources or how to evaluate a source for reliability. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eratosthenes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Erigone, Timaeus and Pappus.
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
And sadly we discovered I can't die in a hospice, it doesn't work that way. But I'm still physically active although I have leg pain which I think is cancer and my Parkinson's slows may walking. We've installed a chair lift so I can get up to bed easily. And I'm doing escape roooms. I don't have long to go I guess and it's possible I will suddenly go downhill. I'm really surprised about how well I still feel, although I tire easily. I thought I'd be much worse by now. Of course my marvelous wife was sure I'd be ok longer. So for the first time in a while I think I'll be around until the New Year. I've had terrible problems with my ability to enjoy food but they seem to be going aŵay and I'm planning turkey for Thanksgiving even though I'm in the UK! I feel sorry and worried for Atsme, I don't think she is well. Doug Wellertalk10:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear you are managing. There is an old practice which says we should try to imagine our inevitable death every day so that when the time finally comes we will not just be prepared but we will be at peace with it. Most people, of course, don't want to do that or even think about it. You're lucky to be surrounded with people who care abut you. I somewhat get the food issue. When I had covid for the first time this year, I experienced hypogeusia. Oddly, I did not have hyposmia, which most people report. As for Atsme, I don't know what to say, but I've often been partial to this PKD quote: "Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane." Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know Covid did that. I just hope I don't get Covid, I don't need anything else bad! Anyway, I sleep well (except for having to wake up to go to the toilet !) and don't worry about dying, just the effect it has on others. And never wanted to die from Parkinson's. Doug Wellertalk09:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I knew nothing about the two pages, or the phenomenon, until just now, when I was prompted to take a look. OMG, the images are downright spooky! If I had known earlier, I would have been half-tempted to propose merging to Stepford Wife. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The phenomenon is extremely interesting because it intersects with many different areas of study through time and place. It isn't confined to a specific period or culture, although recent writers like Paul Starr (American Contradiction: Revolution and Revenge from the 1950s to Now, Yale University Press, 2025) have managed to fill in some of the cultural gaps in the overarching background that others have been ignoring (IOW, the fundamental culture wars and disagreements highlighted by the Civil War never truly ended, an idea that most modern literature is now returning to, slowly). I disagree with Starr in some very very minor ways (he doesn't recognize that the Democratic Party is no longer a unified coalition, but in fact irrevocably bifurcated, a POV he refuses to acknowledge, IMO). In a passing comment in his autobiographical essay "Amethyst, Texas" (1991), Steven Saylor made one of the first popular connections to the conservative cosmetic aesthetic of the 1980s and that of the 1990s, highlighting its observable continuity in the Republican culture of Texas and its relation to Christian evangelicals. To me, this is evidence that conservatives were using makeup in the 1980s and 1990s as a way to signify their adherence to what they described as "traditional values", an anti-feminist, pro-Christian aesthetic that emphasized the role of women as that of being reduced to eye candy for men for marriage and child rearing. Since makeup use by women in the professional workplace has been shown to make them appear less trusted as experts, this was one of many ways the conservative movement was intentionally undermining independent women who broke out of constructed gender roles that intended to hold them back. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very interesting analysis, thanks. I'm even struck by how a lot of the images share a kind of fixed smile, that seems somewhat exaggerated. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the influence of the post-9/11 "Fox glam" aesthetic pushed by management at Fox News and quite literally forced upon guests and hosts alike. The makeup artists were under strict instructions to do this with no exceptions. The fake, "fixed" smile is not just an artifact of the plastic surgery, but the made-for-television aspects of politics-as-performance that Fox and the GOP represent. Style over substance likely came out of the aftermath of the 1960 United States presidential debates that showed Nixon sweating with the public reacting quite negatively to the event. From there, the GOP began to experiment with carefully crafting an image, eventually coming to embrace actors who knew how to play the part like Reagan. Some of them are incredibly good at this, not just at acting, but at a very high level of expertise. Starr makes a point that I've been talking about for years but have rarely seen anyone acknowledge until recently. The culture wars in the US, while portrayed as coming from uneducated simpletons, are in reality emanating from the highest levels of society, from upper class, educated elites. This is rarely emphasized. Why does this matter? Because these "poor women" who are using makeup and plastic surgery in unusual ways that very often disfigure them are victims of culture wars by their own social class. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this broaches another topic, the preference for the Eastern European look. I admit, I know less about that subtopic than the others, but it is very real. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I suspect that this is something that arose from the Texas, etc., culture, independently of politics, and then was, in parallel, found compelling by the GOP/Fox, and by Trump personally. Bechard, and the Trump wives, do indeed have that Eastern European aspect, but I'd say Daniels and McDougal have the more Texas/Deep South kind of vibe. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Daniels does not look Eastern European, more Scandinavian in my mind, but she says she is Irish and Cherokee. Her face reminds me (loosely in a way) of Uma Thurman, who is part Irish, German, and Swedish. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Es hat sich halt eröffnet: I don't need help. I had a good hook, I thought, and I don't have eyes for the hooks N. would tolerate. You know that. I don't know what to do first of the things I find urgent, the Christmas FAC, Frank Gehry, the cantata for New Year's Day, the promised next GA review, two red-link singers in today's discovery of an opera ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Not with a reviewer who only sees teh rulez.) Frank Gehry appeared, after c. 22k char of discussion. I haven't counted how many commented vs. how many actually improved the article. One off the list of urgents. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I have great respect for IAR. But as organizations age, they solidify and fossilize. That means your approach, which was once the way to get things done, is no longer as accepted. This is an iron law of organizational maturity. One way to fix it is to recruit new people, as this kind of institutional malaise is only countered by fresh blood. I fully support what you are trying to do and the spirit of the Promethean fire you have stolen, but you have to know when to fight your battles and this isn't it. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for fragmenting the conversation, I'm just wanting to answer you in a way that won't go way off topic on ANI per the reply to your comment.
I'm not sure if you are referring to my user page with your comment, but I am literally trying to "democratize the knowledge" and "make good maps on Wikipedia." I've been trying to raise the alarm bell on this topic whenever it comes up, and am trying to think of a proper way to go about making bold changes. The issue is that the problem is quite extensive, to the point that I'm not sure how to even start besides making the small changes I'm capable of. I'm more then happy to share knowledge on the topic, but believe we need some strong policy to resolve the problem, and despite my time on Wikipedia, I am only just now getting the institutional knowledge to even begin preposing that. We need policy on approved sources for boundaries (and other geography), appropriate thematic maps for various data types, types of projections appropriate for different types of maps, formal sourcing in maps, appropriate use of color, etc. I've taken a swing at making some maps for the project, but the problem is a bit more then I have time for. For example, this category holds maps that would fail an intro geography course, and literature going back to the 1930s describing their symbology as "misleading." These should be deleted outright, in the same way any misinformation should be deleted, however editors insist that they be replaced with better maps rather then simply removed. I don't have the time to resolve this alone. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. We previously discussed it on your talk page with no resolution. I pointed you to companies who make maps easy to create and use like Datawrapper, and you basically dismissed the idea. We could easily do that here in a good enough way that makes it simple for anyone to create a map. You don't seem to like the idea. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my mistake, I missed the user name. The main issue isn't the creation of the maps themselves, that is easy. QGIS, GRASS GIS, GeoDa, and others all exist as free alternatives to ArcGIS already. ArcGIS Online has a free option as well, and there are countless other ways to go about it such as using R, using Geopandas in Python, etc. The issue is that it is easy to create a map, but there are no guardrails or guidelines to prevent people from making bad maps. We have a lot of maps on Wikipedia created by amateur cartographers, these people are generally self taught, and because they don't go through the academic crucible, often produce sub-par products without realizing it. Democratizing the software is easy, I can and have gotten people to make maps in less then a one hour period using completely free software, the issue is democratizing the knowledge of how to make a good map. I've personally taken over 15 classes on this topic, have taught a few, and have a collection of certificates and trainings, and I'm not always confident in my own works. The map design process from the school I follow requires peer-review and critique, so before publishing I tend to get feedback from at least one person. Software doesn't know that you are feeding it absolute rather then normalized data, it doesn't know that the projection you've chosen for the dataset is inappropriate, it isn't going to know the color conventions surrounding it, and definitely won't be able to tell you if the map is aesthetically pleasing. Creating a map is like writing a sentence, and many of the users don't have metaphorically appropriate grammar, word choice, etc. Before giving the person the tool, it is imperative that we teach how to use it, and I think this is what we're missing on Wikipedia. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I'm talking about experts like yourself putting those safeguards into place in ways that lets everyone make maps. They would be good enough to use on Wikipedia. You're basically saying such a thing can't exist, but obviously they do because we already use them. You can't have it both ways. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. I'm currently in the drafting off Wiki stage of a proposal at the village pump. I've been stuck on it for a few months because of work and life, but hopefully we can adapt the MOS to include detailed criteria for acceptable maps. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) (Disclaimer: I’m one of those amateurs.) Your “absolute numbers” cat reminds me of Edward Tufte (a hero of mine), being exactly the sort of thing that violates the principles in his books on visual communication, which include a fair number of maps. It’s certainly all too easy to find terrible maps on here, for any number of different reasons—and there must be a great many worse on Commons. What do you think of the guidance (& SVG template/library) at WP:WikiProject Maps/Conventions? Anyway, it sounds like a laudable project, but the cynic in me thinks “you can lead a horse to water …”—Odysseus147903:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to check that book out. My hero is Mark Monmonier, and his book How to Lie with Maps (Full disclosure, I originated that page) is my primary guide when making maps. The guidance there is a start, but is missing a lot of very critical things. It calls Choropleth map "gradient maps," which is a choice, and at least mentions that you are not supposed to use absolute numbers. That said, there are multiple types of thematic map, and it provides no guidance for Dot distribution map, flow map, cartogram, etc. It does not detail proper citation. For example, the example orthographic map is of China People's Republic of China (orthographic projection). China has multiple border disputes, and they are using a highly generalized set of borders. For sources on this map, they list several topographic datasets (and this map is not showing topography), but I don't clearly see where they got the borders from. I believe it is based on the CIA World Factbook, which is cited in other similar maps, however this source has been challenged recently by editors who dispute the opinion of the U.S. government. There is no guidance I can see on proper map projection choice. The way they attempt to standardize symbols is by cutting and pasting in Inkscape, which is an odd choice given the free GIS software out there. Kind of like choosing to make an engineering blue print in Microsoft Paint.
If we actually enforced the bare minimum that is suggested by Wikiproject Maps, it would go a long way. I think this needs to be entered into the formal manual of style. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tufte’s Envisioning Information and The Visual Display of Quantitative Information both include examples & discussion of maps in the context of such broader topics as use of colour and “data–ink maximization”. Regarding GIS software, some years ago I tried out a handful of free mapping programs but could get none of them to work. (I admit I didn’t try very hard, having no particular need in mind.) So I’m definitely in the trace & copy-paste camp … At any rate ISTM their popularity is making the plate carrée into the new Mercator of inappropriate projections for global maps. And from the output I’ve seen they all seem to use polygons (or “polylines”) rather than curved splines, which is a major weakness from my POV.—Odysseus147922:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GIS software have a really tough learning curve, it takes a bit to get the hang of things. The biggest problem is knowing what is possible, not necessarily how to do it. Then, you need a project to work on. You develop a workflow using Google Foo and achieve the product, overtime you start memorizing the "how" part for repeated tasks.
The biggest sin is the Web Mercator projection online, but really each map needs this considered independently, there isn't a one size fits all solution.. Global vs. regional projection, and i area, distance, direction, and shape all need to be balanced with the maps objective. I don't think this is something most people even think about for a second before making a map and slapping it online. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main learning curve for me would be in configuring my Mac to run one: IIRC those I tried either refused to launch or crashed on basic commands, which I guessed to be due to missing (or unfindable) libraries or some such. I suppose I should look into it again—although my computer hasn’t got any younger in the meantime—somebody may have made a self-contained app or a package-installer. I’m usually not bad at figuring out a program by RTFM, browsing menus and trying things, when given even a rudimentary tutorial, some basic orientation or a decent Help file, but when it comes to installation &c. I’ve been spoiled by ‘turnkey’ software.—Odysseus147900:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Portrait of Toulouse Lautrec, in Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, with the Natansons at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SnowFire (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LEvalyn -- LEvalyn (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:If You Find This World Bad, You Should See Some of the Others and Talk:If You Find This World Bad, You Should See Some of the Others/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LEvalyn -- LEvalyn (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
; see Talk:If You Find This World Bad, You Should See Some of the Others for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LEvalyn -- LEvalyn (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
; see Talk:Point the Finger for comments about the article, and Talk:Point the Finger/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LEvalyn -- LEvalyn (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Drbogdan misuse of talk page while blocked. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:MCQ § File:1940 Dole ad Pineapple Bud O'Keeffe 1939.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, Viriditas. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Will A. Spens, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
Anyway, congrats on the keep result at the AfD about the Stare case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
.svg)
