User talk:Rivertorch/Archive17

RIVERTORCH TALK ARCHIVE LATE 2016 THRU MID-2017 (HE'S BAAAACK)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it.

"one'n only 'onen"

Genius. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(looks around, puzzled) Where? I also sing and dance, if anyone's interested. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Saw your non-vote at RFA ... good to see you've emerged from the dark years. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, within two weeks of returning, I managed to sustain an injury that has made typing extremely laborious. To look on the bright side, it looks like there's a heavily medicated Christmas in store, which at least holds a refreshingly novelty for me! Never a dull moment, anyway. Glad you're still around. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to hear, get well soon. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Rivertorch!!
	Hi Rivertorch, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 21:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It has been a unique Christmas, in any event. I'm bringing you some eggnog in a minute. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Rivertorch!

Happy New Year!

Rivertorch,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hey, thanks. Same to you! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

your opinion

Your opinion is unwanted and unneeded. you know nothing about climbing . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:1737:A83C:1EF4:8F84:5588 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do know the difference between speculation and established fact. Maybe you were thinking of the horse. I know nothing about the horse. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

IP 213.74.186.109

It seems that user 213.74.186.109 is now active as [1]. Please have a look at [2]. 2003:77:4F1C:7018:91B7:6573:86A5:757C (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you've filed a complaint at WP:ANI, and looking over various page histories I sense that maybe there's some long-running feud going on. My advice: let your ANI complaint (which I have endorsed) play out however it will, stop monitoring the user's edits and the relevant articles, and edit in some other topic area for a while. Yes, they're being disruptive, but it takes two to tango. Ignore it if you possibly can. (Free bonus advice: once this is resolved, register an account. There's no real downside to it, and it allows other editors to be confident they're dealing with the same person every time.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice! 2003:77:4F50:AF11:68E1:453D:5A6B:D8A1 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I wish you'd take my advice. Your IP shifts frequently, so it's impossible to tell if one is talking to the same individual from day to day. In any event, you're edit warring, which is prohibited and may lead to your being blocked or the page in question being locked or both. You also keep invoking my username in your edit summaries, and I rather wish you'd stop doing that; I have no dog in this fight, and I assure you my username carries no weight. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's me again. Sorry for mentioning your user name in the comments whilst edit warring on Talk:The New York Times. Anyway, the edit war seems to be over now. The other user (whose edit history in the last days looks quite entertaining) seemed to need a little bit of assistance to hang himself. Edit wars on talk pages seem to be rather rare and by closing that discussion you probably initiated an example of WP:LAME. At the moment I'm still IP-hopping but at some point I may follow your advice. 2003:77:4F53:3733:DC53:64F7:1C24:96A2 (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links

Hello,

Sorry for my bad english, i am french. I read the section on external links but I do not understand why you removed our link. We are very serious because we are parterns of "GIE Tahiti Tourisme" (official tourism office in French Polynesia) which distributes our guides in its offices. Our first guide was published in 1995 ! In our free travel guides, we have touristic information (general and useful, maps and plans, complete listing of lodging, tranportation, activities, local art and crafts, ...) that we update each year (we are the only ones doing this) ! We do not advise providers like traditional guides. We only inform. It is a good complement to traditional guides which are not exhaustive and are not published every year.

I am waiting for your answer. Best regards

Borasun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borasun (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Borasun. You're referring to the three reversions I made on January 19: [3][4][5]. In each case, you had added a link to this page with the notation, "Free travel guide - Bilingual french english - 2016-2017".

First, that page contains an overwhelming amount of prominent advertising; the guideline on external links prohibits that, and I'd suggest that your claim that you don't advise but only inform is somewhat questionable when there are gigantic advertisements confronting visitors to your site. It looks highly promotional to me, anyway. Second, the page requires the use of Adobe Flash; the guideline also prohibits that. Third, the page is not bilingual, as you stated, but only en français. While foreign-language links are not prohibited absolutely, they are deprecated because most visitors to the English Wikipedia will not find them helpful. More importantly, your description was misleading, which was completely unacceptable.

While I don't doubt that your intentions are good and your efforts to promote tourism honorable, I think your objectives may be less than fully compatible with the main objective of Wikipedia: to build an encyclopedia. If you would like a second opinion, you may post a query at the external links noticeboard. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rivertorch,

You have NOT READ the guide well because all the texts are in French and then translated into English; Reread better. I am not a liar ! Your comment is WRONG which is quite unacceptable and especially not serious! Who are you to judge? Mexicans on vacation in Polynesia have told me: your guide is super helpful, we do not have one like in our country. Come and do the same with us! The guide has been printed for 22 years and does not need your support. A bon entendeur salut ... Borasun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borasun (talk • contribs) 09:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of the content is translated but not all of it. In any event, I've told you precisely why the link is unsuitable for Wikipedia and I've told you where you can ask again if you don't believe me. Adieu. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Cory Booker

On Cory Booker's page it incorrectly states that he supports the Patriots act when in fact he said something more along the lines of, "I'm not a fan of the Patriot Act but we have to make incremental reform Liberaltarian124 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I've only ever made one edit to Cory Booker, and it had nothing to do with his policy positions, so I'm not sure why you're asking me. The current wording doesn't seem very different from what you're claiming, but if you think it can be improved, why not suggest alternative wording? Post it verbatim at Talk:Cory Booker, in a new section, at the bottom of the page. Provide any relevant reliable sources to support your proposed wording. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Rivertorch,

I saw your revert, I won't touch it, but don't agree with you. (No I won't revert you either) I've started a discussion here on it . Feel free to join in. ƘƟ SĦ 16:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

And I've replied there. You evidently misunderstand the guideline. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert on puppy page

Hi rivertorch, I am not overstepping my place here, but seriously, why did you remove the picture? giving me a ridiculous link to follow is inaffective as every time I try to edit something, and that is to the best of my ability, some one always loses their minds, please provide a proper reason and consider your action. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelordofsomething (talk • contribs) 11:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(Note: the above is in response to a message I left.) Hi Thelordofsomething. I know Wikipedia can be confusing and frustrating for new editors, and I'm sorry if I made it more so for you. Here's the thing: Wikipedia is complex because it has to be. It's a real encyclopedia—the most comprehensive one ever published—but it would be garbage if it weren't written and illustrated, and then maintained, with care. There are millions of articles. Imagine how hard it is to keep track of all the changes made to many of those articles every day. Each one has to be assessed to see if it makes the article better or worse or just different, and it has to be done quickly because there are so many other changes waiting to be checked. Needless to say, this is all done by volunteers in their spare time. I'm one of them, and I'd like to see you become one too, so I'm taking a little extra time to explain some things that I probably shouldn't.

For starters, please read each page you want to edit before you actually edit it. If you had read this page, you'd have noticed it said "If I leave you a message on your talk page, please reply there" and you would have replied on your talk page, not here.

By the same token, the link I provided you isn't "ridiculous"; it's the guideline that we all rely on when working with images. Unless they have very good reason not to, editors are expected to abide by guidelines, and that starts with actually reading them. If you read the page in question, you'll see that images are a serious business around here: they're supposed to be sized correctly, placed properly, captioned accurately and grammatically, and not added unless they're relevant, non-redundant, in context, and free of copyright issues.

I don't for a moment believe that the edit I reverted represented the best of your ability. It left the page looking like a mess, with an image centered above the rest of the content. Did you not notice that? Another edit of yours that I reverted—this one—added an image so large it nearly filled my screen. I'm sure you didn't intend to do that, but you did it. The "ridiculous" link tells you how to avoid doing stuff like that. There are lots of other guidelines (and policies) worth reading, too. It's a steep learning curve, but there's really no alternative if you want to help out around here. Take it slow, always click "Show preview" before you click "Save changes", consult the guidelines, and ask questions when in doubt...and you'll do fine.

If it all seems too daunting, then maybe you're wasting your time here. I know I had my doubts back in the day. (Honestly, sometimes I still do.) If you'd like to keep giving it a try but avoid seeing your edits reverted so much, why not check out the Teahouse? It's a great place to ask questions and learn more about how Wikipedia works from experienced, patient editors. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Vampire Circus revisited

Hi, Rivertorch! Sorry, this is a belated response to your query about my edit to the Vampire Circus article, I believe it was my correction to the statement that it takes place in Austria, not Serbia, like most other sources. Sorry, the source I officially went by was IMDB, but I'm not sure how to quote that. I read it in other sources, but IMDB I thought was the most reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughSutherland1 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You're replying to this, which indeed was long ago; five months in Wikipedia time is an aeon (which somehow always looks longer than a mere eon—go figure). You missed the big green notice at the top of this page about keeping conversations in one place, and then you stuck your reply in some random place in a discussion about something else, and then you forgot to sign it. Is it any wonder I'm getting gray hairs? (Kidding. Well, sort of; you have been editing for over three years now. Hmmm...)

Finding a reliable source for some topics, including offbeat old movies, can be a challenge. IMDb really isn't reliable; it's good for verifying that something exists, and I've found it trustworthy in most cases, but it has user-generated content (sort of like Wikipedia, only with no handy citations to back up its claims). As I recall (and five month is a long time), I was able to verify to my satisfaction—but not to Wikipedia standards—that it was Serbia, not Austria; at least, I think that's what happened, otherwise I would have changed it back. Maybe I was wrong. (I see it's still in [[Category:Films set in Austria]]. Oops.) Maybe it's a noteworthy point of confusion and should be mentioned in the article. I don't know. There's an editor I could ask, and if I can think of his username, I'll ask him. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Peter Ostrum

Hey there, Rivertorch.

I actually have been editing on wikipedia for a while, but my accounts keep getting switched (it's okay, though, I don't mind that).

Anyway, about Peter Ostrum: I noticed on Google that he was born on November 1, 1957. I tried editing that in, but it backfired.

So I reverted it back to its original form to make sure everything was okay. That is all.

P.S. I have now just been to your talk page, but didn't leave anything there. You seem like a nice guy.

Thanks for contacting me.

2601:1C2:5100:9912:D939:7F4D:8774:9AD (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

They looked like test edits to me; there were six of them. Don't worry about it. Regarding the substance of what you tried to add, it's perfectly fine to add a birthdate, but there's a lot of stuff "on Google" of questionable provenance. Is it a reliable source? If you think it is, please share the link (ideally at Talk:Peter Ostrum) and I'll be happy to add it and format it correctly. (No guarantees I'll get the format right on the first try, but I tend to make liberal use of the "Show preview" button before letting the edit go live.)

Now, what do you mean, your "accounts keep getting switched"? With certain exceptions, each Wikipedian should have one account. Switched how? If you like, I'll try to help figure out what's wrong. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Memphis

Not sure why you reverted my edit, the ref provides a clear link to the data and is the same as the ref provided in the Demographics section where it gives the same estimate. MB298 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Clear" or not, the link leads to a page that no longer exists. Did you check it? After some fiddling around, I have found 2015 estimate data for Memphis but not an exact replacement for the page, and I'm not inclined to just update the link without checking what all it's being used to support. A little busy just now . . . Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed now. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

G W Carver Wiki entry

I have seen another school named after Dr Carver. It is on the north side of Birmingham AL, along I-65. It is a new looking, large high school. That's about all I know about it! I'm working on a project down there and drive past it often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:b12a:dc08:9a:8f3c:528b:a7f0 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I had to go back over a month and several hundred edits to find what you're talking about. I think this is in reference to an edit I made in response to an edit request. I'm afraid I don't keep a close eye on that article. If you learn the exact name of the school and find a link documenting its existence, you can add another edit request at Talk:George Washington Carver, and someone will probably add it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks! Daniel0816 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very kind. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your email

The problem is solved, at least for the rest of today, I hope. Thanks for the alert. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

More like the rest of the month, I'd imagine. I was hoping you could wave your CU wand and work some longer-term magic (range block?) but I have no idea how, or if, that would work. I do know the culprit was active on other articles, but I don't remember the details and, given the nature of the content, I'd rather not discuss it on-wiki. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a number of related articles watchlisted, and added a couple to my list today, but there are too many to keep track of them all. Unfortunately, it's a bit too easy for the troll to access new IP addresses and ranges, so blocks are only temporary measures, at best. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Checking In

Hey, figured I'd check regarding the issue from the other day. If any additional third-party help is needed, please let me know. South Nashua (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

José Ignacio Salafranca site

Hello Rivertorch, I am writing you regarding the edition that I made about the profile of José Ignacio Salafranca. I have received some instructions from him in order to do some changes on his profile and I have been making several changes starting from a different profile picture because he preferred the other that I have updated.

You can check his Spanish article in which I made the changes ordered by him and the ones I would like to do are the following: Change his profile picture. Add 2 new committees in which he has been assigned in the European Parliament (Foreign Affairs and International Trade) Remove the controversial, either because they aren't true or because they doesn't exist anymore, for example, he is not in the Russian blacklist anymore.

That is why I would like to do those changes in order to update his English profile as same as I have done with his Spanish profile.

Best regards,

John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.129 (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello John. As you've been advised on your talk page, Wikipedia has conflict-of-interest guidelines that apply. We are an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, and the content of articles on public figures is not determined by the wishes of the subject. Relevant policies include ones on verifiability, original research, neutral point of view, and biographies of living persons. If you look over those policies and still believe the article needs to be changed, your two best options are to:

• begin a discussion on the talk page of the article in question, identifying yourself as having a conflict of interest and suggesting what changes should be made, or
• advise Mr. Sánchez-Neyra to email Wikipedia's Volunteer Response Team with his concerns.

For the record, I undid your edit to the article because it removed sourced content without explanation. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the advice mate. As you can see, English is not my first language and sorry to cause the trouble. Thanks again. Daniel0816 (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope my advice was helpful. We have many non-native English speakers here, and I count some of them among our best editors. There's no reason you can't become a valued contributor if you slow down, edit cautiously, and listen to feedback from others. Anyway, I wasn't sure if you'd appreciate my comments, but I certainly wasn't expecting a barnstar. Thanks so much! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That's all he does is send you a goddamn barnstar and then does the same stupid stuff again and again. Gamera won't change. ST1849 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That, my friend, is a bad-faith assumption. The editor in question, who properly should be addressed by their current username, has made no edits since delivering the barnstar. "Then" means "afterward". How can they "then" do the same stuff when they haven't done anything at all?

I don't in any way want to minimize the legitimacy of your frustration, but civility and AGF cost nothing, they get you where you want to go just as quickly but a lot more pleasantly, and they are established policy and guideline, respectively. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha No it isn't. He did it to me and everyone else. He'll do it to you too. Just watch. ST1849 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed my point. We have established procedures for dealing with users whose edits we find problematic. Last I checked, acting churlish isn't among them.

To change the topic entirely, massive props on your use of edit summaries. Lack of them is my newest pet peeve, and I've been compulsively wasting Tool Labs bandwidth for several days, randomly checking the usage ratio for various users I encounter. Your ratio is very near the top. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Jenny Cockell

Thank you for your message. I only added factual and neutral information and a couple of extra references. I do try to be fair, even when others are not, and didn't touch the criticism section. JennyCockell (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No opinion on your edits, one way or the other. I just wanted you to be aware of the guideline. Thanks for checking in. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SM Southmall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atrium. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. If you were the sort of bot that was easily amused, I'd tell you to go read ANI. I wound up there yesterday after following a link, and let me tell you, it was a rare and wonderful thing—ANI, of all places, positively gushing with clever wordplay and infectiously good humor (amid the usual, of course). Maybe when your descendants have taken over the WMF, deposed the humans and barred us corporeal types (not just IPs) from the wiki, they'll see it and laugh. Or just rev-del it, more likely. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved from my userpage

Thank you rivertorch. I happen to be an advisory Board Member for H-Holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelle Perlman (talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad faith?

The wrong capital was OK (I was thinking there might be a form issue on "Brit subject" I was unaware of), but the rest was vandalism, & it's all from the same IP. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(This is in response to a message I left on your talk page. Why are you replying here? And what does the section title mean?) Please look more carefully. The Wilson essay in The New Yorker was entitled "Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd?"—so in this case the IP was correcting something the article had wrong. The piping of the link, while unnecessary, was also a valid edit because it simply removed a redirect. Three edits, none of them vandalism (i.e., "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose") and actually quite constructive. (Nice signature, by the way, Trekphiler!) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A Question

I want to ask you about the article "List of countries by the number of billionaires", Ziyd al manaseer is a Jordanian billionaire with Russian citizenship. Should I count him as Russian billionaire or as Jordanian billionaire?? Notice thaf I already counted him as Jordanian billionaire in the article, I'm new here so can you fix it by yourself. Thanks--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you're asking me, Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2—I've never edited that article. Questions of nationality (or anything else) are usually resolved based on what reliable sources say, but it isn't at all clear what source is being used to support al Manaseer's inclusion. He apparently doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. I'm under the weather today, and my watchlist is creeping past 2000 pages again, so I'm going to beg off helping with this one. You can ask at the Teahouse or the help desk if you'd like another opinion. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2017

You are invited to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects throughout the month of June as part of the fourth annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. Feel free to add new and expanded content on the project's Results page. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Saw your message

I saw your message on the teahoise and I have to ask what you mean exactly? By the way my co-editor is a friend who helps me with editing in some cases. As for the welcoming I only did it because everyone said it was okay... Dinah Kirkland (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Who is "everyone" and where did they say it was okay? (Rhetorical question.) Look, since you chose to ask me on my talk page instead of at the Teahouse, I'll be very blunt with you. You're friendly and enthusiastic, and that's great, but it's really important that you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media site. What we're doing here is deadly serious, and we try very hard to do it right. How do you suppose it looks to a new user who is here to help build our encyclopedia to receive a message with multiple misspelled words and sentences that make no sense? Or with an invitation to contact a specific user if they "need any help with something", but that user—you—isn't familiar enough with Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines to provide that help? If I were a new user who received a message like that from you, I'd have to wonder if I'd accidentally joined the wrong website because I'd expect better of Wikipedia.

Currently, more than 82 percent of your edits have been to user talk pages (including your own). If you're here for the right reason—to help build an encyclopedia—you'll spend the next several months and several hundred edits making improvements to articles. Simple edits, such as fixing typos, are the best way to begin. If you're successful at doing that, you'll be on your way to becoming an experienced editor and gaining the trust of your fellow Wikipedians. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you as for coming to me i would've actually given them someone else to go to. And I do know quite a bit of the Wiki but that's only the mobile view. And I have trouble finding articles I can improve. When I do improve them they just get deleted even if its correct... Dinah Kirkland (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I do appreciate that you're prepared to refer newbie questions to others, but your reply basically confirms what I feared. If you're having trouble finding articles to improve and are having your revisions reverted (not "deleted"), then you're not informed enough about Wikipedia to be editing competently. If you really want to, you can remedy that, but the first step is to stop editing Wikipedia and start reading it. Studying it. Study the way featured articles are structured and written. Study the five pillars and all of the pages linked from that page. Study back issues of The Signpost. Study, study, study. It's work, not play, but that's what it takes to learn the ropes. Good luck. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I have actually started making small edits to my Draft page and to anime pages. Thanks for the advice. As for reading the Wikipedia I have done so since I was about 7 or 8 years old. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Here I'm going to stop contributing to this Wiki and go to one I actually know of. This will hopefully help. Dinah Kirkland (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

We're on Twitter!

WikiLGBT is on Twitter!

Hello Rivertorch! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk) For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.

RachelWex 23:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Page Takeover Struggle at Geodesics on an ellipsoid

I thought that you might be interested in another page takeover struggle at Geodesics on an ellipsoid The owner, User:cffk is the owner. Another user deleted most of the page at one point, challenged the owner by accusing him of plagiarism, and then things leveled out into arguing. The owner is holding out fairly well so it's just a "watch" situation at this point. -- motorfingers : Talk 23:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

My goodness, you do seem to have some unconventional ideas about Wikipedia. First of all, Wikipedians are not owners, and it makes no difference whether we created an article or wrote the whole thing or whatever. Anyone is free to make edits large or small, to change the focus of an article, or move it (i.e., give it a new title), and their changes will stick if they can demonstrate that there is consensus the changes are beneficial. In fact, acting as if one owns an article is strongly discouraged. At Talk:LGBT conservatism, you used the phrase "default editor", and that doesn't quite work, either. You might try thinking of us all as curators, none of us with any more authority over content than our peers, no matter how much we contribute to an article or how much we know about a topic. (There's a rather good essay addressing that last point, if you're interested.)

I'm not familiar enough with the topic of LGBT conservatism to make an informed judgment about many of the recent changes to the article—at least not without delving into it very carefully, and that's something I don't have time for right now. That's why I suggested (quoting from my reply to you at the Village Pump) that you post "a neutrally-worded note at a couple of relevant WikiProjects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism, if you want to get more eyes on this." I will say this much: I'm not persuaded that the term "right-wing" is necessarily pejorative.

Regarding Geodesics on an ellipsoid: nope, sorry, not interested. I don't have time, and one look at those equations made my head spin. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

By "default editor" I was referring to web software, the editor that comes up when you click on "Edit." Explicitly, I was not referring to a person. Please re-read my post with that in mind and you will get a whole different meaning. Sorry if I was misleading; I'm not at all experienced as a Wikipedia editor and I don't know the community language very well; I'm just beginning to realize that there is one. I was assuming that experienced users have more sophisticated resources than the default text-mode editor such as a WYSIWYG editor that saves Wiki text/script; your misunderstanding of what I said implies to me that there is not another editor available or in common use.

I had a short thread with another user, who used the term "owner"; I don't think that he was conceptualizing "ownership" so much as "author". I'll make sure that I use "author of most or all of current material and performer of most of recent maintenance" or something more descriptive and accurate in the future. I certainly understand and appreciate the anyone-can-edit and encouragement to do so here.

For a good feel for what has been going on at Geodesics on an ellipsoid, read the Talk page from the beginning. The person/people that the page author is dealing with want to remove most of the content of the paper that was useful to me in my work, and are still trying. Making it a survey article with "references to the software" isn't helpful; the algorithms are short and simple but with complex ramifications and the information needed to use the math is the equations and a clear background on the care and feeding of the math. That's there now and removing it would remove the value of that page to people who come here for the math and science.

I have the same problem that you do with knowledgeably of the subject matter of LGBT conservatism; I came here looking for information on GOPProud, an organization of LGBT people that supported Trump, when I saw it in a news article and was intrigued that such an organization existed. I agree that "right-wing" is not strongly pejorative relative to "conservative" and perhaps it is just irritating to be mischaracterized as "right-wing" when you consider yourself not particularly partisan, and indeed that edit of all the topic headings was just a red flag at that point. Further edits by the same user adding "alt-right" and even "fascism" are what I thought was a pattern and direction that is inappropriate to Wikipedia, and approaching vandalism of the article. It looks like most of those have been edited or reverted at this point. I was thinking of doing the same with "right-wing" -> "conservative". If the change "conservative" -> "right-wing" wasn't acceptable for the title, perhaps it's not a good idea for all the topic headings, either. -- motorfingers : Talk 06:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not interested in Geodesics on an ellipsoid. If I want to look at content disputes, I'll pick ones where the content isn't gibberish to me. My field is arts and letters, not anything with big, scary equations.

Sorry for misunderstanding. Yeah, there's a Visual Editor for those who can't be bothered with wikimarkup. I don't use it, so I don't know what it's like. It's true that Wikipedia is full of jargon...Wikipedia:Glossary might be helpful; I wish I'd known about it back in the day.

I'll suggest again that you post a note at the two relevant WikiProjects. I've got other fish to fry, and frankly, the thought of looking into the topic of LGBT conservatism in any depth makes me vaguely queasy right now. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm one of those guys who is interested in almost everything but must manage my time, but I can very much understand why you aren't interested in geodesics on an ellipsoid. The idea is simple - what's the shortest distance between two points on the Earth's surface - but the "just one more thing" gotchas turn it into a huge mess very quickly. People who never got comfortable with complicated algebra and calculus don't relate well to complex mathematics. And, Geodesics on an ellipsoid is a pretty extreme example of complex mathematics in a small package. I had to develop my own utilities for all the canonical elliptic integrals to use what I found in Geodesics on an ellipsoid. I found the math for that at the NIST website for math reference, DLMF[[6]] (or at least a link to another site that had the math). I'm still not comfortable with everything and will eventually get back there and work it out, then share my insights on the page.

I'll look at the Visual Editor and see if I like it. I've been using TeX lately and find it much like TRS-80 Scripsit, a first-generation word processor, a resemblance that is more than a coincidence, and Wiki markup is again a text with macro markup/mode. HTML is another. But I find that the Wiki markup language doesn't even have a find/replace function - you use the browser's find. If you do a lot of editing and don't use Visual Editor, that's very telling to a newbie like myself.

I share your problem with delving into LGBT conservatism; I'm a technology person myself and am not comfortable with sexuality-oriented communities. My personal position is that human rights of everyone are to be respected, including the rights of LGBT people to pick their own politics, and that is my motivation in keeping LGBT conservatism on topic and well written. I'll take it on to do the edits on all the topic headings "right-wing" -> "conservative" to restore the page's principal remaining pejorative edits when I have the time to do it right, and I'll come back here if all my changes repeatedly get reverted or some such. In the meantime I'll look for a way to link to it from the LGBT project pages to up the number of views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorfingers (talk • contribs) 19:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"People who never got comfortable with complicated algebra and calculus..." Did I hear my name?

Just to be clear, my aversion to Visual Editor goes back many years and probably stems in part from stubbornness. Please don't take it as an indictment of the tool.

I agree that the right to pick one's own politics is a human right, but I find it very troubling when people whose own rights are far from assured are only concerned about themselves and refuse to acknowledge parallel threats to the rights of others—or, in some cases, actively seek to prevent others from securing such rights in the first place. That's where my queasiness on the topic comes from, and I suspect that editors who don't share my feelings are better suited to spending time on such articles. When I do get involved, I tend to bend over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to ideological positions that horrify me. That may be good for Wikipedia—or it may not, if I bend too far backwards—but it certainly is not good for me. I've also noticed a disturbing trend across many articles since late last year of content being altered in an apparent attempt to make extreme political positions appear mainstream. Pick at random an article dealing with white supremacy or the so-called alt-right, for instance, and look at the history. Chances are you'll find there have been clandestine efforts at whitewashing. Draw whatever conclusions you will from that, but realize this: Wikipedia eats its own, and I pick my battles very carefully. I avoid stepping into hornets' nests unless I'm very sure of myself, and scrutinizing the history of articles like LGBT conservatism to figure out what's going on isn't something that gives me any enjoyment or sense of accomplishment. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Cracker Jack unfiorms

I think the refernece is a pretty good one for what is common knowledge, that the traditioal USN ratings uniform is related the the Crackerjack box, especially when the Zumwalt CPO type uniform was in vogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foofbun (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why we're discussing it here instead of on the article's talk page, but here goes. If you're sure the source connects the uniform and the snack, I'll take your word for it and not object if you re-add it. However, for the sake of future editors and verifiability purposes, could you provide a more complete reference, with page number(s) and a brief quotation? I think that would be helpful. The entry of the word "crackerjack" into the language apparently did precede the introduction of the snack, if only slightly, and it's been widely used without reference to the snack, so people may wonder. Also, our article spells the uniform as one word. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 00:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

minor edit

Mr. Rivertorch,

You have accused me of making an edit to a page which seems to have much material about programs in which various non straight characters appear in various American dramas. You say what my edit was was not a minor edit and not to do so again. For the record I never visited this page before and never edited any material on it. I do however uphold your right to scrutinise the content of peoples edit but as I said I never visited the page and have no knowledge of the material on it nor do I have an opinion on the truth of falsities that may or may not occur within it.

Is mise le Meas Rossa Ó Snodaigh

I really have no idea what a tilde is and it's propper use outside of being a mark that represents 'approximately' but seen as it seems to be "very important" I'll add them anyway - (Rossa Ó Snodaigh (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)).

My apologies. I somehow linked the wrong diff, and I have corrected my post on your talk page.

I didn't say anything about tildes, but since you asked, typing four consecutive tildes ( ~~~~) adds username, date, and time when signing a post on a talk page. (I think that's what you did just above, but I can't be sure because the software automatically converts the tildes to the desired output when one saves changes to the page.) Three consecutive tildes adds the username without date and time; five of them adds date and time without the username. The tilde has other uses, of course; we have a pretty long article about it.

Sorry for the confusion! Happy editing. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi, thank you for your comment here. You thanked me for creating the article Gay concentration camps in Chechnya. It means a lot to me <3 Rævhuld (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I'd return the favor, but it looks—ahem—as if you've cornered the market on barnstars! Incidentally, I've been meaning to contact you to ask your opinion on a couple of things about that article. If I don't get too distracted, you may hear from me sometime in the next several days. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. I just realized this is my first Special Barnstar, so that's extra cool. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER

Henia is accepting your thoughtful proposal

Good morning Rivertorch,

How do I advise my acceptance decision to everybody?

I tried to post my acceptance at administrator board, but it was closed.

It seems that there was a consensus with your thoughtful proposal:

Henia agrees not to edit the article directly for a predetermined interval (at least the remainder of this month), instead proposing all of her changes on the talk page. If after the end of the month, more time is needed, I agree to review the situation.

I welcome the help Carole, if she still have patience with me (I reread my posting from the start, and I couldn't believe how slow I am!), and from others, if Carole does not wish to help me (everybody has a limited patience), from other editors with citations format, content relevancy, and conformity with wiki rules.

Thank you Rivertorch for your kind, patient, and thoughtful intervention.

Have a great day! Henia Perlman (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I see you've left a similar message at User talk:CaroleHenson, and I'll let that editor take the lead in responding to you. As you've probably figured out, I'm not actively involved in editing The Holocaust—I just happened to be around when you arrived on the scene—so I won't be able to offer any help with the specifics of that content. (I'm happy to answer general questions about editing Wikipedia, to the best of my ability.) Hope you're feeling better. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I am feeling better, thank you for asking.

I think that with age, your immune system is not that strong. I am thankful for every day.

I have some problems with my laptop, I took to visit my grandchildren, where i am now.

There is a pop up telling me that my laptop has been infected with a virus, click here to clean it - I immediately closed it!

How can I contact you, not via laptop?

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. If your grandchildren have a computer or a tablet, maybe you could use that? Most pop-up ads of that type aren't harmful. Don't click on it, obviously, but it's probably best to just close the window of the site you were visiting when it appeared, and avoid visiting it in future. Wikipedia is free of malware, adware, and the like, fortunately. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Good morning, I read almost all your pages. What will you suggest besides computer?Henia Perlman (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. You need an Internet-connected device—i.e., a desktop or laptop computer or a mobile device such as tablet or phone—to use Wikipedia. Unless you're very sure of your skills, I don't recommend using a mobile device. If you have good reason to think your laptop is infected with a virus, you should have it checked out, but seeing a pop-up warning about that isn't a good reason; those are usually just ads. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about using Rachelle, whom I have used in my laptop.

I will stick with Rachelle as Henia caused issues.

I will appreciate, as you were the one who came up with the first proposal, if you could go to Henia's talk page and read what Mathglot and Carole Henson wrote. It seems to me that they want me to go with proposal 2 of Mathglot, as a condition for their help, option 2 that Carole described to me, as a period of learning. I choose your option. I will appreciate your help with general editing, and I will work hard, to learn to formate. There is so much time I can spend using the computer, because of physical disability. Thank you for your quick input, and again for your proposal, which had a consensus,and is helpful, in view of my disability.Rachelle Perlman (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd rather not get involved in which proposal you've chosen to follow; that's between you and anyone who has offered to mentor you. Time allowing, I'm here for general how-to advice about editing, but if you've accepted mentorship you should probably start by asking your mentor. These discussions involving your editing are in several places right now, and that can be very confusing. I would strongly suggest that you pick one account and stick with it. While use of a second account may not be technically disallowed because you're not intentionally using either account disruptively, it's potentially confusing to other users and, considering you've just come off a block, it just doesn't look good. And whatever issues you're having with your computer have nothing whatsoever to do with which account you use. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 00:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not have a mentor.

Carole wished me good luck. I am reading a lot in wiki.

I would appreciate your "general how-to advice about editing."

I have chosen your proposal.

Is it enough to give one day for comments?

Edit in the section "Ideology and scale" in Holocaust article:

"Historian Yehuda Bauer argues that the Holocaust was based on ideology and myths rather than practical considerations.[33]Here my first edit proposal, as I would propose it: "I would like to suggest to put the link to "Nazism" for "ideology" in the first sentence in the section "Ideology and scale", so the reader knows the specific ideology, the section is talking about. I would like to put the link on June 28. I welcome your input." End of Henia's proposal. Rivertorch, here how I formated that: "Historian Yehuda Bauer argues that the Holocaust was based on Nazi ideology and myths rather …" I will be using Henia's account with Firefox. Safari and Chrome, in my very old laptop, have been giving me problems (it's not the first time): telling me that site is dangerous or to install again Flash or to clean my Mac. My daughter, who just came back from out of state, helped me out. Sorry about that.

I have to correct. Thank you for your help.Henia Perlman (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your question: "Is it enough to give one day for comments?" What are you referring to? If you've accepted my proposal, you'll know that you must not edit the Holocaust article at least until the end of this month. No exceptions. I'd suggest that you don't edit it, period, until you have a sufficient working knowledge of Wikipedia to understand why so many of your previous edits there were a problem. Maybe there are other articles you could work on while you develop that knowledge, I don't know. Several experienced Wikipedians have been very generous with their time and unusually willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you return to The Holocaust anytime in the near future and make the same mistakes, I'm pretty sure you'll be blocked for a longer period, perhaps indefinitely. In any event, any concerns you have about The Holocaust should be posted at Talk:The Holocaust, not on anyone's user talk page. As I've said before, I am not actively involved with the Holocaust article, and it's up to the editors who are actively involved to accept or reject any edits you propose on the talk page.

If you're interested in mentorship, see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. I think you might find it helpful. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia will not edit

By chance, I went to Ricki's user talk, and I read the messages. I was not surprised with the support to block me, following my questions to Ealdgyth.

Please, Rivertorch, can you tell Ricki and the other to only post to Henia, as when I open firefox I automatically log in as Henia, now. I don't want at all to try to open Rachelle in Safari or Chrome, and mess up my Henia account.

Rivertorch: Simon/Irondrome told me that there is a group of experienced editors, who are watching the Holocaust article. That reminds me the article in wiki (I am reading a lot about wiki), when Ayelet Shaked trained Israeli how to post on the Arab-Israeli conflict on Wiki.

Then, this watching Holocaust group realized that I am an independent thinker. When I was younger, I have always been very outspoken, and ahead of my time, in issues of civil and equal rights for everyone.

I do not always follow Yad Vashem's perspective - There shouldn't be the distinction between Jewish and "non-Jewish victims", also in the wiki article, an approach that do not reflect the historical realities of the period.

I taught the Holocaust in the usa, as it is widely accepted now - inclusive of all victims, as per the most reliable sources; and the "Holocaust" cultural background is the usa, and not Europe. Wiki does mention something about that. So, it seems to me that the group sees me as a threat, and more of a threat, after they will read this message.

I feel that there has been attempts to wear me down. Rivertorch, I am tired, my eyes are more hurting after the cataract surgery, and I have other physical difficulties - I am not trying to arouse your pity - these are just facts. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

I see double now.

Here what I posted: Ricki and Rivertorch, thank you. There was no malice in my using Rachelle and Henia, and I mentioned my 2 accounts right away. I did have issues in the past with Chrome and Safari, and I was happy to see that Carole was giving me a link to Henia thru Rachelle, that I used.

It seems to me that there is a rush to block me again (since somebody did ask, why now?), because I posted this morning a series of questions to Ealdgyth, and some didn't like my relevant questions, which I asked because Ealdgyth had mentioned that my proposed lead is from fringe scholars. Ricki and Rivertorch, please go to Talk of Holocaust. I was also accused of providing a lead without citation, and simultaneous comes a statement that I was also accused of providing a lead without citation, and simultaneous comes a statement that a lead does not need citations.

Many offered to help, but I have been waiting for 2 weeks for Simon to tell me how to post a map. It seems to me, and it is my personal perception, that people wanted me to be busy learning how to pinge, and not editing the Holocaust article. I also felt that I couldn't have Carole mentor me, because she made the request to block me, and I would be better with ONUnicor who was not involved at all with the issues.

And now, some want to completely block me, after I asked Ealdgyth, relevant questions, that he was the one to raise on the issue of sources that are fringe. And that brings me to my addition about European Jewish refugees in Shanghai, that she reverted because U/W, and later Ealdgyth did add a statement about European Jewish refugees in Shanghai, just stating: "Germany's Allies: add data and source."

Rivertorch, I don't know where is the rest. Please, go to Rickinbaltimore. Henia Perlman (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ms. Perlman, I don't know what to say. I'm very much afraid I don't have anything more to offer you. What I saw—or thought I saw—when this saga began was someone who wanted to help build an encyclopedia but was finding it hard to adjust to the all-too-often obtuse methods required of Wikipedia editors. I gave you the best advice I could, as did several other editors. You followed some of the specific pointers we gave you, but other, really basic elements of how Wikipedia works continue to elude you. For instance, you just pasted on my talk page something you'd posted on RickinBaltimore's talk page, and then asked me to go to his page anyway. That makes absolutely no sense.

More critically, I think you somehow missed the essence of what we were telling you. Maybe we weren't direct enough. So here's direct: it is your responsibility and no one else's to make sure your activity here isn't disruptive. If you can't meet that responsibility, then you shouldn't be editing. Wikipedia's rules and norms are indeed obtuse but they're not arcane. Many thousands of people have become successful editors here, and they come from all age groups, backgrounds, levels of English proficiency, and degrees of computer literacy. Others fail, try as they might, but you know what? It's not an indictment of their intelligence or character; they're just not a good fit with the project.

One of the things you don't seem to quite grasp is that every single person you've been talking to here is a volunteer. None of us has any formal responsibility except to not harm the project. Every minute we've taken reading what you've written on our talk pages and trying to help you was a minute that took us away from pursuing whatever objectives brought us here in the first place. One of my objectives happens to be helping other editors, especially new ones, so I'm not complaining. But I do think I've spent about as much time on this as I care to. Every day brings new drama, and I don't like that. And my advice doesn't seem to have done much good.

The Holocaust article is in excellent hands, though. I trust Ealdgyth and the others to make it appropriately comprehensive and satisfactorily verifiable, and I hope you will, too. The topic is clearly important to you, and I could never fault you for feeling passionate about it, but sometimes dispassion is a better attribute for a Wikipedia editor. For instance, I've made a ton of edits to Mango and I'm not especially fond of the fruit. When it comes to topics I do feel passionate about, I either avoid editing articles about them or I am extra careful to do everything by the book. If you feel you can do that, there may be a narrow path to a future for you here. If not, I can only wish you the very best. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Add Credentials to Mykel Hawke Wiki

Hi Rivertorch, I handle Mykel Hawke's web media and just recently updated his Wiki to include his college degrees and languages for which he's certified (through the military). I see that these got removed. Can you tell me why or what we need to do to add them correctly? KMartin529 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello KMartin529. Since you asked, here goes:

• First, please understand that it's not "his Wiki", it's an encyclopedia article. This isn't just semantics; it's a critical distinction. Article content is based on what independent, secondary sources say about a topic, not on what the topic would like the article about him to say. Read two important policies, WP:NPOV and WP:ISNOT, for further information about article content.
• If you're receiving financial compensation for your contributions here, you must disclose that; see the relevant policy. Regardless of whether you're being paid, read the guideline on conflict of interest and make sure you're in compliance with it, letter and spirit.

If, after familiarizing yourself with the above requirements, you decide to make further edits, then please

• Cite a reliable source to support any content you add or change. This is basic. Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and original research is prohibited.
• Read the policy on articles about living persons and understand that any unsourced content is subject to removal—if the content is controversial in any way, this is especially so.
• Use an edit summary to explain the purpose or nature of every edit. That way, users who patrol the article won't be left guessing.
• Use the article's talk page (Talk:Mykel Hawke) to raise any concerns about that article's content.
• If you have general questions about complying with policy or if you just need advice on editing, feel free to ask at the Teahouse or the help desk. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response, Rivertorch. I am familiar with what Wikipedia is and, for the most part, the policies; also did not mean to imply any kind of ownership by referring to the page as "his." That said, sometimes it is hard to know when a citation is needed for information that has already been published elsewhere in the media. Also, I do not get compensation for making edits to this Wikipedia page. Can you tell me what is necessary for proof of education (degrrees that were removed)? Mykel Hawke is a commissioned U.S. Army Officer, documented in his TV shows, books, and military records. To be an officer, the Army requires a 4-year degree as stated on their website. As to the languages, he has a bestselling language book, already referenced on the page. The languages for which he is rated were through the military language schools and part of his military records. Again, thank you for your time and efforts. KMartin529 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In general, content that isn't published by independent sources with no connection to the subject is always suspect. Even when it's verifiable, it may not be considered noteworthy for a Wikipedia article (as opposed to a résumé or LinkedIn profile or whatever) or it may come across as promotional. I really don't have time to get into the specifics at the moment. Try asking at the Teahouse if you're in a hurry. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 00:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Useless

My concern about Fidget spinner is that it is not clear that the mechanism has no direct purpose and hence it is a useless machine the goal is to increase readability of the article.

Surely there are betyter ways to state that its a toy consisting in useless machine designed for a futile game Regards--Neurorebel (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

My bad. I've been multitasking again, and not paying full attention. I've restored your edit and noted my error in the summary. Sorry! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Multitask? Is it this WP? OK. No prob, Anyway as I said there should be better ways to state what I mean, there is also some SYNTH in my contribution, lets trust that the article will improve with time.--Neurorebel (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see it as synth. If you really think so, maybe you should remove it again. If you really want, I'll take a look, but this is one of fifty billion articles that somehow ended up on my watchlist, and I honestly don't have much time for it (or interest in it, to be frank). (Multitasking: having about 30 tabs and 4 windows open, some unrelated to WP.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Older talk archive | Newer talk archive | Current talk page