User talk:Rivertorch/Archive7

RIVERTORCH TALK ARCHIVE EARLY 2011

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

Of humans, vegans, and Wikipedians

Copied from User_talk:Manujchandra where thread began:

Hello. I responded to your latest post at Talk:Human and wanted to say a couple things that were beyond the proper scope of that page. I hope you'll take them in the spirit they're intended, that is of friendly advice.

Both the wording you've used in discussing your proposed changes to Human and your edit history indicate that you have strong opinions on the topic of human diet. While it is possible to responsibly make substantive edits on topics one cares a lot about, it requires extreme vigilance (and high self-awareness, I think) to avoid letting one's own point of view interfere with the neutrality of a given article. Such interference happens often, and while it can occur without any conscious intent, it tends to raise red warning flags for other editors. Once that has happened, the limited supply of good faith begins to run low, and once it's been exhausted it is rarely replenished.

If you're here to push a point of view or you only care about a single topic, your active editing career will be acrimonious and short. I don't think that's the case, for what it's worth. I choose to think instead that you're here to help build an encyclopedia. If that's the case, you might consider stepping back and editing in some other areas where you don't have strong opinions. In the process, you'll gain hands-on experience in the "alphabet soup" of WP policies and guidelines, what they mean, why they exist, and how they are applied to specific articles. Then, if you really want to, you can come back to the Human article and approach it with a better understanding of its context. You'll also probably return having learned that major articles (such as Human) tend to be quite accurate and up-to-date in terms of scientific consensus and scholarly research, and come to trust your fellow Wikipedians a little more. Of course, it's completely up to you.

Cheers,
Rivertorch (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly advice

When I first edited wikipeidia, I was personally attacked. I raised an alarm WP:PERSONAL but it went unheard. The current citation on wikipedia diet does not say anywhere that humans are omnivores. It merely says that humans behaved like omnivores and that this helped them survive which may be true. This is quite different from saying that humans are not herbivores. Also, you sited a "concensus" that scientists believe that humans are omnivores. I would like to see this consensus please. Like you so rightfully mentioned, wikipedia does not deal with "proofs". Its mostly just opinion pieces. Its all about a group of like minded people hijacking a page. When "proof" is presented, you're conveniently reminded that its not about "proof", but number of people hijacking a page. I made a very balanced and well referenced edit that "Humans are behavioral omnivores but anatomical herbivores". This serves both sides. It doesn't deny that humans dont act like omnivores, but also acknoleges the scientific fact that humans are herbivores. Your objection to fish is somewhat correct but understand that there are many herbivore fish too and that in nature exceptions often exist like the platypus which both lays eggs and suckle. 'Vegetarian Piranha': http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/42xx/425x/4255_vampire-fish-02_04700300.JPG. Dicto simpliciter. You are grouping all fish as one.

I have been accused of pushing a propaganda, bias, etc. The truth is that its you who are pushing a propaganda and are biased towards meat. I don't deny I am not biased too. We are both biased, you just have numbers on your side. For this very reason wikipedia is not allowed to be cited in serious work of science and logic. Numerous attempts were made to dissuade me from editing even when I was polite and was adhering to the protocols. Basically, I was told to "play nice" or just "move on". I am not moving on. I asked two very simple questions, a) Whats wrong with the 2 links I cited from American Journal of Cardiology and b) what will it take to change that line. None of my raised concerned were addressed, except from the "fish" argument that is demonstrably. flawed too. The answer is 1600 people. You have 800+ on your side, if I can get 1600+, I can get that line changed. And I can get 1600 people if I want. But thats not the point. You will get another 3200 because you are in the majority and it's never about the proof anyways.

I admit I cannot shout louder than you. You win. I will take mediawiki and I will create my own encyclopedia. Then I will cite my proofs. What's the point of an encyclopedia that cannot even be used in a real work of science? Its just a party of pseudo-intellectuals. I will create one that cares about proof and proof only. Manuj Chandra (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You know, if you're going to respond to sincere advice given in good faith with an unconstructive rant, you should at least get your facts right. I don't know what you mean by my "objection to fish" being "somewhat correct". I don't believe I said one word about fish. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

The reason I bothered to write you a note was because what you were doing at Talk:Human was rather similar to something I did at a different article's talk page when I was still relatively new here. I thought I might spare you the trouble, but we all have to make our own mistakes and I guess my attempt was futile.

Incidentally, you're definitely confusing me with someone else when you accuse me of "pushing a propaganda" [sic] and being "biased towards meat". The truth is, you don't have the foggiest idea about my biases on the subject—or even if I have any. If you insist upon voicing unfounded conclusions about your fellow editors, especially those who are trying to be helpful, then I think your decision to create your own encyclopedia rather than editing here at Wikipedia is probably a good one. I would suggest that you learn the basics of the scientific method first, instead of carelessly bandying words like "proof" around, but then you know me . . . I'm just one of 1600 shouters. Rivertorch (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

Date what is the the truth about her disappearance. I won’t put back the date 8th to 3rd and 19th to 14th again. Read the link and you can take your own conclusion. Other counties give the date that I wrote.It is the first time that I wrote on the English version of Wikipedia; I will not do it again. The page is 56 kilobytes long, too much text there!! news where Agatha Christie in December 1926 was.CvdV --77.251.239.81 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  You can change the dates. No one is stopping you f--Calimero54 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)rom doing that. However, in order to not have your change reverted, you must provide verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) supporting the date change. Rivertorch would not have reverted otherwise. You provide a source here, but you did not provide one there. Also, if your source differs from the preponderance of sources, then you will need to develop a consensus for the change through discussion on the article’s talk page. Also, Rivertorch was merely following the Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle (shortcut → WP:BRD). You were bold, he reverted, now time for discussion. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

77.251.239.81, I have replied to the substance of your comment here. As I noted in my edit summary when I reverted your changes to the article, I assumed you were acting in good faith. Getting reverted is no reason for you to give up on contributing here. Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

77.251.239.81 is my IP. I saw your reaction and I answered --Calimero54 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Rivertorch (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Why so delete my post? ]: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.221.133 (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it appeared to be vandalism. Rivertorch (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Iguazu Falls

Hi Rivertorch, I was looking at Iguazu Falls, which you've marked as a contradiction. I couldn't actually see where there was a contradiction and was wondering if you'd be able to put something on the talk page? Worm^TT 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning when I tagged it doesn't immediately occur to me now. A bit pressed for time now, but I'll take a look at some diffs later today. If I can figure out what I was thinking, I'll post something on the talk page; if not, I'll remove the tag. Rivertorch (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I wasn't missing anything obvious. No rush, whenever you get a chance Worm^TT 19:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for asking. Rivertorch (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bomb

Only rollback changes that are clearly vandalism. Abuse of tool can result in removal of privileges. Marcus Qwertyus 01:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

MQ, I always welcome constructive review of my edits, and I appreciate your taking the time to voice your concern.

For the record, the edits I rolled back were these:

1. (deleted an 's' for no conceivable purpose whatsoever, introducting a grammatical error);
2. ((replaced a paragraph containing basic information critical to understanding the topic of the article with a single, poorly constructed sentence containing a misleading generalization and two punctuation errors);
3. (split the aforementioned sentence into two, noting a cause-and-effect relationship unexplained by the new wording).

While the total effect of those three edits was deeply unconstructive and damaging to the article (with no redeeming mitigating factor that I could see), it was the first one—the introduction of an error in simple grammar for no apparent reason—that prompted me to revert the changes in one click instead of three. As its own edit and not the slip of a finger during a larger edit, it seemed indefensible. Now, policy defines vandalism as "deliberate" (the policy's italics, not mine), but whether a given edit was deliberate can never be definitively determined; until we can read the minds of our fellow Wikipedians, it will always be a judgment call. I know, and I assume you know also, that one misguided newbie's idea of a constructive edit can be anathema to the integrity of an article. I'm a stickler for assuming good faith, but if I always gave the benefit of the doubt to even the most destructive edits, I'd never use rollback at all. Like many, this was a borderline case. Perhaps I should push the border a little further towards assuming good faith. I'll certainly give it some thought.

Incidentally, I have been quite careful with rollback, a tool that was entrusted to me without my asking. Ironically enough, I am on record as opposing its being offered to those without the mop. My opinion on that has evolved, but the concerns that underlay my opposition remain. Have I ever used it inappropriately? Probably. I'm far from perfect. Have I done so deliberately? No, not once, and there we have another instance of the "deliberate" word. Please think about that for a moment, in the context of AGF and your choice of wording above. While your intentions were undoubtedly excellent, your delivery did leave something to be desired. After all, even first-time vandals get a welcome along with a warning (and, in the case of IPs, a fresh start every month). You might have said something like

Thanks for cleaning up that mess at Bomb. Are you sure those edits really warranted rollbacking, though? Please remember that rollback is for vandalism only.

Judging from your user page, you still have your youth, while I in my dotage have come to believe the time-worn adage about honey versus vinegar. So if you're going to warn someone who's been around both planet and wiki longer than you, you might consider doing so a little more gently. Just a thought, anyway, and intended in a friendly way. Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason why rollback for borderline cases is not permitted is because only a generic edit summary is generated. Use a rollback tool that allows you to leave an edit summary if you are going to rollback edits that may or may not be constructive. Marcus Qwertyus 19:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a constructive suggestion (albeit one phrased in the imperative mood). Thank you. I have always eschewed most tools—even to the point of coding HTML and CSS markup manually (off-wiki, I mean)—but lately have wondered if I should give Twinkle a trial run. Rivertorch (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, Strat. To date, I have avoided IRC entirely, and I'm not sure I see the advantage of discussing this particular matter in real time. The hullabaloo over potential BLP problems is once again being blown way out of proportion, imo, and I'm seeing way more heat than light. I suspect it is that controversy which is shaping both tenor and tone of the debate over pending changes, and it is one I have no wish to wade into. Rivertorch (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re. Mitochondiral DNA

Sorry, still a bit new to editing. I noticed apparent vandalism in Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, and was going through 66.58.138.139 's history looking for additional vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.34.205 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to highlight more text than you intend . . . it sure happens to me sometimes. I don't see the vandalism you were trying to remove, though, so please try again (and click Show Preview to view the results of your edit before you save it). Rivertorch (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misread what you said. If I understand correctly now, you were trying to undo something that had already been undone. That happens to me sometimes, too! :-p Rivertorch (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I looked at the edits done by the user, then went (I think) to revert changes, or edit, or some such. The edit was only from a day or two ago, so didn't think to check if it was the most recent one. 71.88.34.205 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Happy editing! Rivertorch (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Taco Bell

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at Jerem43's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noted. Rivertorch (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Politics of West Bengal and Gujarat massacre

See what is happening in West Bengal is not any fighting between rivals. The main opposition party Trinamool is using the armed rebels called maoists to kill cadres of the communist party to win the next elections by hook or crook and use its influence in media to confuse the people that it is inter-party rivalry. AIFB is the 3rd biggest party in West Bengal. Who are you to decide what should be in the template?

On Gujarat, the name of the page Gujarat violence itself was misleading. It was a state sponsored massacre of a minority community. All the hindus died were on police firing not in any "attack" by religious rivalry. Losses of lives among the hindu community (I am also a hindu) can be documented in the page but should have an iota of truth. Your alliance with cooperating anti-nationals of a country to malign the nation online will be dealt seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.58.109 (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When I encounter something in a Wikipedia article that offends me, I take a deep breath, count to ten, go fix typos in a random article, and then develop a methodical plan for fixing whatever offended me. Maybe this approach or something similar would work for you. What I do not do is go to the talk page of an editor who reverted a change I made to an article and proceed to make impetuous allegations regarding his or her motivations. It's deeply counterproductive and in most cases will be either met with a justifiably hostile reaction or simply ignored. I'm a rare (and perhaps gullible) editor willing to assume good faith on your part for a little bit longer. In that vein, I'll try to briefly address what you said, in case you're interested.

I am not in "alliance" with anti-nationals (or anyone else), know regrettably little about current affairs in Asia, and make it a point to avoid substantive editing of articles dealing with international, religious or ethnic conflicts. If you believe me, read on; otherwise, don't waste your time.

The reason I reverted your edits to Politics of West Bengal was because you removed what appeared to be reliably sourced information without explanation. The same thing happened with your edit to 2002 Gujarat violence—sourced material removed without explanation—except that another editor beat me to reverting you. Removing sourced information from an article without explaining precisely why you're doing so is a very bad idea around here; it goes against longstanding policy and custom. Do it a few more times, and it's likely that someone with more tools than I have won't take the time to explain anything—they'll just block you for disruptive editing. No one here cares about your allegations of "facts"; Wikipedia's standard is verifiability.

I see that in subsequent edits (which reverted my reverts) you have used edit summaries. That is a step in the right direction but doesn't go far enough. The text you removed from the two articles was sourced to major newspapers and Human Rights Watch. If you think those are unreliable sources or that the wording you object to isn't supported by those sources, the correct approach is to open a discussion on the respective talk pages of the articles. This will allow other editors to consider your reasoning, and for consensus to develop. In the meantime, you must not call other editors "propagandists" (or other offensive names), as you did in this edit summary. That violates WP:NPA and will also tend to get you blocked in a hurry. And do familiarize yourself with the policy on edit warring. Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) aka the propagandist 07:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Douglas personal

(this paragraph moved by IP editor from User talk:69.140.66.37, where I had posted it) Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Michael Douglas, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

HI rivertorch. Here is the source: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20101047,00.html . This says 9wks after meeting they married. The current version says 6wks, which to input? Or put both dates like the way the opening sentence of Mariah Carey says Mariah Carey (born March 27, 1970[2] or 1969[3][4]; sources vary) is an ....

Also if all things must be sources wehre is the source for their wedding? That sentence has no citation. Thank You.69.140.66.37 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing the statement. I'd recommend against the "sources vary" wording, instead picking whichever you think is the most reliable of the sources. The guideline may be of some help. If not, you can open a thread on the article's talk page and see what others think, or you could pose the question at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

To answer your second question, the policy on biographical articles about living people draws a distinction between just any old content and content that is controversial or potentially damaging. So, while the wedding info should also be sourced, the adultery info must be sourced. That is non-negotiable around here, hence the warning.

I don't watch the article, but feel free to come back here and ask if I can be of any help. Rivertorch (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thank You. I find it funny that marriage doesn't need a source but adultery does. That is the way it is I guess. Like we park in a driveway but drive on the parkway. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, like the species that's building it, has much to find funny at times. But our potential readership numbers in the hundreds of millions (for the English Wikipedia alone), is on all continents, and is of various nationalities and ages and educational levels and religious beliefs and so on. So I have to rein myself in from time to time, remembering that what I find funny may at best go over someone else's head or even, just possibly, offend them deeply. The weird thing is, those sorts of misunderstandings also can happen even when everyone involved is being perfectly serious.

In terms of BLPs, in the abstract, think of it in terms of possible harm to a subject's reputation or, in an extreme case, personal safety: people get stoned to death for committing adultery in this world, but such a penalty is almost unheard of for getting married. Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Klipsch cite

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noted. Rivertorch (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

minor edits

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noted. Rivertorch (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

" ... what one editor considers minor might constitute a certified Big Deal for another ... "

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noted. Rivertorch (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Islamic angels

I am very sorry. I did not realize that. I wont remove any more maintenance templates. Thank you for telling me!--Imadjafar (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I figured it was probably an accident! Rivertorch (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you prove he wasnt Batman

I dont think that is a claim you are adequately prepared to refute —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.79.135 (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait actually that was rat man nvm you were right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.79.135 (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many constructive things to do around here. Why don't you make yourself useful? Rivertorch (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

1844 model penny

Hello Rivertorch

You have ask me to clarify , i have the largest collection of Model Coins , i do not kow how to prove this , i have three of the 1844 Model Penny and have sold the 4th to another collector, as for the other comments i have studied hundreds of the One Model Pennies which were made between 1840 to 1848 , the latter date was inscribed on a brass type , this is still hard to clarify all this coins are in my collection, so how can i clarify this.

Regards Model Coin Collector — Preceding unsigned comment added by Model Coin Collector (talk • contribs) 06:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, MCC. Thanks for taking the time to contact me.

It's critical to understand that Wikipedia has strict policies which forbid original research and require that article content be verifiable. If you read the policies I linked to in the previous sentence, you'll see that it really doesn't matter whether someone is the world's foremost expert on a particular subject; his or her contributions still must be verifiable via reliable, preferably secondary, sources. That's not to slight any editor's specialized knowledge or experience, which can be invaluable both to provide the background necessary to write an informed article and to find sources for the references the article will need in order to become a good article that no one will feel the need to tag for unverified statements and missing sources.To apply all of the above to your situation, I'd say this:

I think you're claiming that only four such coins are known to exist. (Is that right?) In any case, if you know of a reliable source—e.g., a book or other publication (not self-published and preferably either scholarly or widely respected among coin collectors) or a web site (not a blog, wiki, or personal site)—that will support your claim, then add it to the article. (If you're worried about formatting, add it to the talk page instead, and I'll be glad to place it in the article.) If you know of no such source, then the sentence will remain tagged with "citation needed" until either someone else finds a source or someone decides to remove it. Either way, it's no reflection on you. Most of us have made additions to articles that we couldn't provide references for, and most of us have seen those additions tagged or removed. That's Wikipedia! Rivertorch (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Autoconformation RfC

A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look, although I'm not sure that autoconformation is ever a good thing ;) Rivertorch (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Iguazu Falls 2

Then... I can't edit, can I?..... Why not??? I didn't gave enough references? Or what is happening??? Why you are "the boss" and I am "the employee"? --El rrienseolava (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. There are no bosses and employees; we're all volunteers. I'm simply following the rules and recommending you that you follow them, too. I'm well aware that these rules can be daunting for new users, but they are for the good of the encyclopedia. Rather than taking a combative stance, it would be helpful if you would try to understand what the rules are, why they exist, and how they're applied.

I left a perfectly civil note on your talk page advising you that edit warring is not allowed and asking you to stop inserting the disputed content. To your credit, you did post to the article's talk page, but you also inserted the content again—before anyone had a chance to discuss the matter with you. And so, in addition to replying to your note on the article's talk page, I placed the standard warning template on your talk page. Although the template mentions blocking, you are not blocked now and most definitely can edit.

I'll reply to your latest post on the article's talk page there. In the meantime, please take a little time and review some of the basic rules governing content, especially the original research policy and the reliable sources guideline. If you're unsure what they mean or how they apply to your edits at Iguazu Falls, I'd be happy to try to explain. You can also ask here. Rivertorch (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Mind weighing in?

Rivertorch, I've seen you at LGBT-related articles, and want to know if you wouldn't mind weighing in on this: Talk:Heterosexualization#Not only an LGBT issue. I posted a message about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, which you may have seen already, but I hardly get any help from there or other WikiProjects these days. So part of my approach these days is to go to relevant editors individually and hope they weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look and don't think I have anything constructive to contribute. The article looks problematic—sourcing is sparse and it looks like there's a fair amount of original research. The very first ref, which is used to support the term's definition in the lede, appears to fail WP:RS. Sometimes less is more: even if it means cutting the length significantly, if you can make the whole thing impeccably sourced, it will be a lot harder to challenge what's there. Good luck with that, though; I have encountered the term "heterosexualization" damned infrequently. Rivertorch (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very interested in the article. I definitely saw the "multiple issues" tag. My objection was to the editor removing so much material on the basis that he did. I did not (and still do not) feel that the mass deletion was valid. As for sourcing, since it is a small article...I can understand it only having eighteen sources. I cannot judge how much original research is going on, if there is any, seeing as some of the references are book sources with no urls. It might be better to just redirect the article to Heterosexism. Heterosexism is better put together and is covering the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting to Heteronormativity is likely the better choice. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Either of those are more easily sourced, anyway. Actually, Heterosexism may still need better sourcing, too; it was on my watchlist for a long time but disappeared in a great purge I performed last year. I wish I had reasonably easy access to more sources (and a faster connection to the Net); I'm sure that if heterosexualization isn't just an arcane neologism but an accepted phenomenon, it will have been defined and explored in depth in one or more peer-reviewed journals. (I see it appears in the title of two cited journal articles, anyway.) Tell you what—I'll watch both Heterosexualization and Heteronormativity for the next couple of weeks and chime in if you propose a redirect. You might also consider a merge. Rivertorch (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I did propose a redirect on the Heterosexualization talk page (in the linked discussion above). Do you mean some "proper" type of proposal? As for merging, I'm not sure I'm up for sorting out what the Heterosexualization article may have that the Heteronormativity article doesn't. I haven't even read these articles yet; just brief parts of their leads. If someone else feels there is something that can be saved from the Heterosexualization article, I don't object to them merging that into the Heteronormativity article of course. I'm just not interested myself in trying to discern what overlaps what in regards to these two articles. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the difference between proper proposals and improper proposals. (Indecent proposals, maybe!) In looking the article over again, I really think that the lede reads like original research and seems disconnected from the rest. So what I'd suggest is incorporating any good content that doesn't duplicate something in Heteronormativity, Heterosexism, or Homophobia into one or more of those articles, then redirecting Heterosexualization to the first of those. I'm pressed for time right now but am willing to make such a suggestion at Talk:Heterosexualization later. Feel free to ping me if you don't see any activity from me there within a few days. I get absent-minded about these things. Rivertorch (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Emmylou Harris discography

Hi Rivertorch,

I'm not going to back out your edit to the above page regarding Hard Bargain, but I wouldn't call the album minimalist - IMHO, only "Darlin' Kate" would qualify for that description, as the two men play multiple instruments on the other tracks - and the overall sound is pretty full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andthepharaohs (talk • contribs) 07:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. "Production" can refer to either the making of an album or the resulting sound, so it is a bit ambiguous, I suppose. I changed "cut down production" to "minimalist production" because the former is just clumsy wording: it would need to be hyphenated to be grammatically sound, and even then it's problematic (cut down from what?) and sounds sort of informal and imprecise for an encyclopedia entry. I'm a bit pressed for time right now or I'd play around with an alternative or two. Will take a look later. In the meantime, please do reword it as you think best. Rivertorch (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it to "simple." I found both that and "stripped-down" in a review. Either would work fine, I think. Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

...and basically edited the hell out of it, while I was at it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rfc

I agreed with your Rfc comment about "not any editor". I think 10 serious editors are better than 100 error prone ones. Now, FYI, User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#Serious_Wikipedians. Ideas? History2007 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(Fixed your link above) I'm only half paying attention today. Super busy. I'll turn my attention to it when I can do it justice. Rivertorch (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And I've replied now. (And I fixed my "fix"!) Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability has a page. If you would like to just add your name as a participant there, it will gain momentum based on user endorsement. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been giving it serious consideration for over a day now, and I guess I should have let you know that before now. Several concerns are getting in the way of my casually tossing four tildes onto the page. For one thing, I've never joined any WikiProject, and I'm not sure I want to become a "joiner" at this point. If I did decide to stop being the Lone Ranger and start collaborating in a structured way, I think I might be of more use to one of the more established projects, such as the Guild of Copyeditors or perhaps one related to a subject with which I'm familiar enough to write about intelligently. I also am concerned about any sustained collaborative effort because off I'm not sure I can commit to giving the time and close attention something like that would deserve. If I'm going to commit to doing something, I'd rather not do it halfway.

More specifically, I also have specific concerns about two of your project's stated objectives, and I'm not sure whether an endorsement of them is implied in the act of joining up.

So I'm still weighing my options, I guess. I do appreciate the invitation and wish you every success with your project, whether I sign on to it or not. Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The objectives are subject to debate by the participants of course. So which objectives bother you? That would be good to know. As in any other Wiki project or Wikipage, no one agrees on anything 100%, but discuss it. As for a "long term contract" for you to do free work, none exist in Wikipedia. People can walk off anywhere any time. History2007 (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That is technically true, of course; no one has a gun to his head around here. But I certainly wouldn't feel good about walking off in the middle of something I've invested time and effort in.

As I said on Blade's talk page, I am unsure about the last two objectives. I'm happy to discuss that in some detail, but I'm only online for a few minutes today. Rivertorch (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The last objective in probably not a "reliability objective" in fact now that I think about it but a general content protection objective. I will try to separate that out and add something else. What do you suggest as item 7 once that goes away. The 6th objective about reliability over new articles may in fact bother some other people too, so I will think about softening that. Ideas? History2007 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All right. This is likely to be sort of long, so bear with me. For starters, I'd say that Item 7 is a reliability objective, broadly construed, inasmuch as bad edits of various sorts can and do make articles unreliable. But the "semi-automated tools for 'content protection'" concerns me. I don't know what a semi-automated tool would be, in this context. Do you mean something like Pending Changes/Flagged Revisions? Or a Twinkle-type gadget? The latter would help with vandalism, including outright spam, but not so much with "thinly veiled commercial promotion". As for the former, it may be inevitable eventually, but I can't say I want to have much do with it in any incarnation I've seen to date (and the issues it raises aren't limited to a lack of technical sophistication). In either case, I'm not sure how a WikiProject is going to go about encouraging the creation of such technologically-based solutions. Even if we're just talking bots, those are created by people who have the skills and the time and who are interested in that sort of thing. So I guess I'd just get rid of Item 7 for the moment. I don't see why anything need replace it.

I'm conflicted about Item 6. No one could reasonably argue with its first sentence, but the second sentence is quite debatable. Unless we're quite sure that a decade of article-writing has filled all the significant gaps, we shouldn't be emphasizing the improvement of existing articles over the creation of new ones. I, for one, am not at all sure. Although nearly all of the "low-hanging fruit" may have been picked by now, I'm not persuaded that there aren't significant gaps yet. Fwiw, I still not infrequently encounter nonexistent articles when I come here to look something up. Sometimes they've been deleted—perhaps wrongly—and sometimes they're redirects that deserve their own articles and sometimes they're just not here at all and never were. And I'm just not sure that filling those gaps isn't of the highest importance.

Consider also that while plenty of editors are flexible and can contribute in different ways, others are not and cannot. For instance, some editors are better at creating something from scratch but get really bored or inept when faced with the task of molding and polishing something beyond its fledgling stages. By the same token, others thrive on sourcing content, rewriting text, finding and arranging graphics, adding infoboxes and the like but couldn't write a passable stub to save their life. No amount of cajoling or coercion will turn one kind of editor into the other kind. Editors with enough self-insight will realize where their strengths and weaknesses lie, but others will make futile efforts to conform to community standards and wind up in situations where their incompetence gets them into trouble. Bottom line for me on this one: while I support placing certain limits on article creation, I don't want to discourage any competent editor from writing a new article. Ever.

Specifics aside, I guess I might as well ask you in very general terms: why exactly do you think your project is a good idea? What would your project supply that is lacking in the WP community currently? Rivertorch (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have started to think about your items, and that resulted in some useful items that will help others in general,e.g. two new pages on reliability tools, if you look on the project page. I will do more fixes then respond, but your comments already helped clarify some items. I will do more, then come back in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll look forward to seeing that. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Wiki-Watch should go on the front page in a week or two, then reliability will get some attention. I am yet to expand the project items but will do so in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Rivertorch (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rfc

I agreed with your Rfc comment about "not any editor". I think 10 serious editors are better than 100 error prone ones. Now, FYI, User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#Serious_Wikipedians. Ideas? History2007 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(Fixed your link above) I'm only half paying attention today. Super busy. I'll turn my attention to it when I can do it justice. Rivertorch (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And I've replied now. (And I fixed my "fix"!) Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability has a page. If you would like to just add your name as a participant there, it will gain momentum based on user endorsement. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been giving it serious consideration for over a day now, and I guess I should have let you know that before now. Several concerns are getting in the way of my casually tossing four tildes onto the page. For one thing, I've never joined any WikiProject, and I'm not sure I want to become a "joiner" at this point. If I did decide to stop being the Lone Ranger and start collaborating in a structured way, I think I might be of more use to one of the more established projects, such as the Guild of Copyeditors or perhaps one related to a subject with which I'm familiar enough to write about intelligently. I also am concerned about any sustained collaborative effort because off I'm not sure I can commit to giving the time and close attention something like that would deserve. If I'm going to commit to doing something, I'd rather not do it halfway.

More specifically, I also have specific concerns about two of your project's stated objectives, and I'm not sure whether an endorsement of them is implied in the act of joining up.

So I'm still weighing my options, I guess. I do appreciate the invitation and wish you every success with your project, whether I sign on to it or not. Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The objectives are subject to debate by the participants of course. So which objectives bother you? That would be good to know. As in any other Wiki project or Wikipage, no one agrees on anything 100%, but discuss it. As for a "long term contract" for you to do free work, none exist in Wikipedia. People can walk off anywhere any time. History2007 (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That is technically true, of course; no one has a gun to his head around here. But I certainly wouldn't feel good about walking off in the middle of something I've invested time and effort in.

As I said on Blade's talk page, I am unsure about the last two objectives. I'm happy to discuss that in some detail, but I'm only online for a few minutes today. Rivertorch (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The last objective in probably not a "reliability objective" in fact now that I think about it but a general content protection objective. I will try to separate that out and add something else. What do you suggest as item 7 once that goes away. The 6th objective about reliability over new articles may in fact bother some other people too, so I will think about softening that. Ideas? History2007 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All right. This is likely to be sort of long, so bear with me. For starters, I'd say that Item 7 is a reliability objective, broadly construed, inasmuch as bad edits of various sorts can and do make articles unreliable. But the "semi-automated tools for 'content protection'" concerns me. I don't know what a semi-automated tool would be, in this context. Do you mean something like Pending Changes/Flagged Revisions? Or a Twinkle-type gadget? The latter would help with vandalism, including outright spam, but not so much with "thinly veiled commercial promotion". As for the former, it may be inevitable eventually, but I can't say I want to have much do with it in any incarnation I've seen to date (and the issues it raises aren't limited to a lack of technical sophistication). In either case, I'm not sure how a WikiProject is going to go about encouraging the creation of such technologically-based solutions. Even if we're just talking bots, those are created by people who have the skills and the time and who are interested in that sort of thing. So I guess I'd just get rid of Item 7 for the moment. I don't see why anything need replace it.

I'm conflicted about Item 6. No one could reasonably argue with its first sentence, but the second sentence is quite debatable. Unless we're quite sure that a decade of article-writing has filled all the significant gaps, we shouldn't be emphasizing the improvement of existing articles over the creation of new ones. I, for one, am not at all sure. Although nearly all of the "low-hanging fruit" may have been picked by now, I'm not persuaded that there aren't significant gaps yet. Fwiw, I still not infrequently encounter nonexistent articles when I come here to look something up. Sometimes they've been deleted—perhaps wrongly—and sometimes they're redirects that deserve their own articles and sometimes they're just not here at all and never were. And I'm just not sure that filling those gaps isn't of the highest importance.

Consider also that while plenty of editors are flexible and can contribute in different ways, others are not and cannot. For instance, some editors are better at creating something from scratch but get really bored or inept when faced with the task of molding and polishing something beyond its fledgling stages. By the same token, others thrive on sourcing content, rewriting text, finding and arranging graphics, adding infoboxes and the like but couldn't write a passable stub to save their life. No amount of cajoling or coercion will turn one kind of editor into the other kind. Editors with enough self-insight will realize where their strengths and weaknesses lie, but others will make futile efforts to conform to community standards and wind up in situations where their incompetence gets them into trouble. Bottom line for me on this one: while I support placing certain limits on article creation, I don't want to discourage any competent editor from writing a new article. Ever.

Specifics aside, I guess I might as well ask you in very general terms: why exactly do you think your project is a good idea? What would your project supply that is lacking in the WP community currently? Rivertorch (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have started to think about your items, and that resulted in some useful items that will help others in general,e.g. two new pages on reliability tools, if you look on the project page. I will do more fixes then respond, but your comments already helped clarify some items. I will do more, then come back in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll look forward to seeing that. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Wiki-Watch should go on the front page in a week or two, then reliability will get some attention. I am yet to expand the project items but will do so in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Rivertorch (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am so appreciative!

Dear Rivertorch, Thanks immensely for your comment on my addition to Leon Russell career history. Yes I totally need to learn how to cite my additions. I did my homework though, and found the required Billboard magazine issues on Amazon. However, I do need to learn how to do the footnotes asap. i guess I was overwhelmed that inserting a footnote would mean renumbering the others. But I just now realize perhaps that is done automatically? Anyway, my pertinent background is in writing music/record reviews for the Boston Globe, as well as local music magazines. I am also interested in legal writing, so am quite aware of how logical you are and appreciative of your insight. i have a strong tendency toward the flourid in my writing, which i often don't see until I get a kick in the pants. Mea culpa in profundis, blah blah. anyway, i am in complete agreement that this page badly need prose edits. some of the writing is cringeworthy. (The awkward use of "Further" is painful!) I became interested in the Leon Russell page because I like his music. I also had a friendship in 1972 with one of his band members, Joey Cooper, whom he also worked with on the TV show Shindig in 1964 and 1965. That show was a unique petrie dish for Russell's musical aspirations and first exposure to psychedelia and the "British Beat" sound. None of this is easily documentable of course, but I may try. As it stands the career section for Russell is too much like one big name dropping session. That makes writing easy, but the result is obnoxious and boring. Where is the insight? Our society's appetite for celebrityism makes superficial writing about elbow rubbing all you need to describe a person's life. Sad. Thanks for listening!!! Kgenereux (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, yes. Well, Russell's article is on my watchlist only because I reverted vandalism or something like that. I'm aware of who he is, his recent comeback via Elton John, and the fact that he was very well known in the '70s, but I don't pretend to know much about him. I I actually haven't done more than skim the article so far. (So many tasks to do here, so little time.) Yes, footnotes are sorted automatically: once the reflinks are set up on a page (which they already are at Leon Russell), inserting the source information between the tags <ref> and </ref> will place the citation in the references section and number it. Honestly, citations are one of the more complex things to get right on Wikipedia, and no one's going to jump on you if you screw it up. (They might revert you. Preferably, they'll just fix it.) I'm just online for a few minutes now, but I'll try to take a detailed look at the article over the next day or so.

Incidentally, your background in writing music reviews could be very helpful to Wikipedia. Don't worry about your writing style. If you go over the top, someone invariably will let you know. There is a tendency around here for article text to be flat and boring. In my view, that is an unfortunate side effect of the policies requiring that content be neutrally worded, verifiable, and free of original research. It's actually possible to honor those policies and still write lively prose, but it's a fine balance sometimes. Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If I could decipher it.....

Hi Rivertorch,

This sentences were not "deciphered" :))

What is incomprehensible here, please?

---

(1)Jesus is in their theology (2)God´s ....(3)only born-created.... (2)Son, ....(4)but not ....(5)God the Son... (6)as believe trinitarians.....

easy to understand

---

The Witnesses, though they do give relative "worship" ("proskyneo") to Jesus as (1)God's Son and (2)Messiah, (3)Christ, (4)the Lord ((5)but not The LORD, (6)which they considerer only to Almighty God, the Father), and pray through Him as (7)Mediator, do not give him the same degree of worship or service as they give to God the Father.

easy to understand

---

regards --FaktneviM (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edit added these phrases to the article:

• Christ, the Lord (but not The LORD, which they considerer only to Almighty God, the Father),
• Jesus is in their theology God´s only born-created Son, but not God the Son as believe trinitarians.

Aside from the errors in spelling and capitalization (which I would have fixed), the grammar and syntax were bizarre enough that I couldn't be sure what you meant, so I just reverted. "Consider" is a transitive verb; you can't "consider to" something. But removing the preposition leaves us with "which they consider only Almighty God", which doesn't make any sense, either. In the other phrase, what exactly is a "born-created Son"? It has no clear meaning in English. Your explication above (why is it numbered?) isn't very helpful, I'm afraid. In any case, I have no particular interest in the article or the topic; I was there only as a copyeditor.

Incidentally, I see that someone has left a comment on your talk page regarding your difficulties in using standard English. May I suggest that one solution might be for you to post your proposed edits on a given article's talk page? That would allow you to explain what you mean and for the wording to be cleaned up before it goes into the article. Personally, I value diversity among Wikipedia editors, but I suspect your proficiency in English is not yet sufficient for the types of edits you've been making. Articles must be clearly written in standard English. Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Phrase "born-created" means both togetger.

No, it doesn't.

Numbering designate dfferent thoughts for Your better understanding.

Well, it didn't work.

Could You demonstrate these senteces in that right "form of English"?

Thanks for help. --FaktneviM (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, I'd like very much to help you—in theory. If we were speaking in person, I'm sure we could understand each other, but your command of written English is making it next to impossible for me to understand you and, I suspect, for you to understand me. The fact that you're not even typing carefully or checking what you've typed—your reply above contains three typos—doesn't exactly move me to spend a lot of time on this. I'll repeat my suggestion that you go to the article talk page (Talk:God the Father) and propose the changes you want to make to the article. It is possible that someone who is familiar with that article will be able to understand your meaning. As I said, I'm not interested in the article, and I'm not familiar enough with the topic to glean your meaning from the clues you've given. Sorry. Rivertorch (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

1) I understand You clearly! For me is no problem to understand those lofty Englishmans at Wikipedia, but they can´t do the same.

2) "If we were speaking in person, I'm sure we could understand each other" - No doubt about it.

3) "born-created" .... is non-existing word, but means as could be logically expected - born and created together.

4) Numbering ... didn't work. .... That´s not possible. You seems quickwitted. Please try once more. You surely manage it.

5) Generally saying, my mind is faster than real doing, ... so many typing errors I do very very often despite using previews many times before I save it. Excuse me, but I have right to do typing errors thousand times per one sentence, if I want it to do. You have no right to speculate about my personality.

6) It´s very sad to know overwhelming majority of native english are lethargic and lazy to think. This is recent state of people here. Never mind.

Thanks --FaktneviM (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that is just silly. Point by point:

1. If you understood me clearly, I think you might have taken my constructive advice and posted to the article's talk page.
2. Glad we agree on that.
3. Logical expectations vary among individuals. Nuances of language often confound logical expectations.
4. Sarcasm and negative generalizations about other editors aren't going to win you any friends.
5. Spell-check is fast and easy and will catch many of your typos. I did not speculate about your personality, but I did comment on your carelessness in typing, and I stand by my comment.
6. I'm not "native english" [sic]. I am often lethargic and occasionally lazy, but I think that as an unpaid volunteer, just like you, I may be forgiven for that. Sometimes, when a topic interests me, I become very focused and excited about editing. As I indicated before, the minutiae of theological views of the Jehovah's Witnesses is not such a topic.

I have been considerably more patient with you than I'd expect anyone to be with me if I were to bumble onto a foreign-language Wikipedia and call its editors lazy because they didn't take time to contemplate my garbled claims. My good faith is fast approaching its limit, so I hope you'll take my sincere well wishes with you as you move on to other areas of the project. It's a vast world out there. Sorry I couldn't be of help. Rivertorch (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well. I have no throw to this debate too. Never mind. I appriciate Your driving motives and make no question of your advices, which could help me in future. Despite generalizations of other editors seem to be unfair, critical point of statistics is clear. For many years, for several different topics, I had no fluke to encounter unlazy+unlofty+helpful editor. Perhaps my development will reassume and look forward optimistically, because lot of problems is on my side. Hopefuly this agonized talk right now will not relevant for our potential tomorrow. Best regards --FaktneviM (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

whoops, had a finger fumble

Reverted you on the Pending changes discussion page with an accidental rollback click, undid it, but I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know it was just a finger-fumble. Sorry 'bout that. Best, --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete the main page lately?  ;) Seriously, thanks for the heads-up. I've done worse! Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

*grin* Nope, nor blocked Jimbo... yet.  ;-) --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reflist @ talk page

Hi Rivertorch,

I'm sorry if I did something wrong, the talk page had that ugly big red text about missing references/, and I just inserted it without much thinking.... I will revert it in no time. Sorry.

Br, dnik ► 16:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No harm done. Thanks for letting me know. Usually, when I see something I don't understand at all, it's because I'm being clueless. Rivertorch (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(thread began here)

Btw, regarding the associated article, are you up on notability requirements for backing bands? I noticed that Spyboy and The Nash Ramblers (and The Hot Band) don't have articles, and I was wondering if they should. (Sourcing would be a big job, especially for The Hot Band, I suspect.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

James Michel

Hi. Ok maybe my edits were a bit far fetched. But the article itself is biased and unfounded. For example, have you ever asked the person who wrote this paragraph where is the evidence to back it up?:

There are claims that Seychelles still suffers from limited freedom and transparency of the press and, according to the opposition, rigged elections.[citation needed] This claim is not justified when, according to official results, President René and his Seychelles People's Progressive Front party won presidential and legislative elections in 2001 and 2002 respectively, with about 54% of the vote in both cases.[2] Compare this to the nations with true dictatorships where elections are won with 95% plus of the votes! Seychelles has a free media, TV, radio and print. There are a raft of newspapers not aligned to the ruling party. Sadly, these opposition papers are of very poor quality, providing virtually zero serious political debate and bereft of alternative policies to those being pursued by President Michel. The free press indulges mainly in scandal, little tattle and mud slinging.

I know for sure that is not true coz I live there. Its frustrating because people who only see the country through the web think they know more than those who actually live there. Is this paragraph written from a neutral point of view? In fact, if you would try to get hold of all the copies of the newspapers there, you will see that the Nation, the main state controlled paper is very biased to the president. He is always on the front page. It is filled with adverts. It is of poor quality. There is hardly ever any proper news about the real state of things in the country. For that, you have to go to other papers e.g. Regar, Today and Weekly (the so called opposition papers). They are high quality.

I repeat, people who only see the country through the web think they know more than those who actually live there. Not just you, but even the UN and IMF. Therefore, even if Wikipedia tries to be neutral, it fails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.3.195 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The first of your two edits to the article changed the infobox to suggest that the President Michel had married his secretary. If that was true, it was incumbent upon you to provide a credible source to back it up. If it wasn't true, then it was an act of vandalism that violated Wikipedia's policy on biographical content. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I actually spent 2–3 minutes checking and drew a blank.

Your second edit—also unsourced—reported the results of an election in colorfully POV terms and alleged bribery on the part of the defeated incumbent. But wait—it seems the election hadn't even happened yet when you made the edit. So you deliberately inserted non-factual content based on wishful thinking into an encyclopedia article that is supposed to be limited to verifiable fact. That is vandalism, and unequivocally so. You have acted in bad faith and destroyed your own credibility.

Wikipedia is not a tool for influencing elections, nor is it your own personal soapbox. I urge you to limit any further activity at Wikipedia to sourced edits that may be easily verified; otherwise, your tenure here is likely to be short. Rivertorch (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

PTED article "vandalism"

PTED is real, the article is not a blatant appempt to sell books, those books should be worked into the references correctly not in the manor they are; I have a PhD in the area; but I don't know how to do references correct; please undo your misguided changes; and if possible format the books correctly. I take it you are not an expert in this area from your ignorant and flippant post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.207.224 (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the article need be greatly improved and is poorly written in many ways; but that material need be in it as they are the seminal books; this disorder is under consideration for DSM-V. I have read both books; they are not in anyway dubious. They are scientifically rigorous. Please help improve the article if you so wish if you know the material... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.207.224 (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea who you are or what you're talking about, but I'll see if I can figure it out and respond later. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP appears to be making reference to this crapmess. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I hadn't got around to checking yet, but thanks for the heads-up. (Long time no see, btw!) Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mmph…evidently I quit editing Wikipedia the way smokers quit smoking, i.e., repeatedly. Look carefully at the "retired" box at the top of mah talk page. Tee hee, etc. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[cough, wheeze, flick Bic, edit conflict] I saw your name in Recent Changes one day recently, so I knew you weren't gone gone. But the plot thickens: not only have I never edited this crapmess or its associated article; I have never edited any page that 108.7.207.224 has ever edited. [fade in Twilight Zone music] Which is all very well—mistakes do happen (I once almost reverted Jimbo when I inadvertently clicked on the wrong tab)—but I can't understand how this one might have happened. If our edit histories have never intersected, it's downright odd. Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, pardon my denseness . . . it's a nice-"sounding" (ahem) pun, but I actually don't get it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't overthink it; it's little more than a clever word-sound pun on citation/cetacean. But the template is fun to read. I see two possible explanations for the crapmess weirdness: Either you've been sucked via transwarp conduit into an alternate reality in which you are actively involved in editing that crapmess, or our IP-only friend is exactly as much of a bull in the china shop as E appears to be. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't see any plausible way an IP I've never intersected with ended up on my talk page, I'll have to accept your first hypothesis. (Please let my new reality be more real than my old reality, with little or no unreality and only sporadic episodes of surreality.) Although their comment did sound like the sort of comment I'm prone to getting, which made me wonder if someone was having a little fun. (To IP 108.7.207.224: Thank you. I love a mystery!) As for marine mammals, I overthought it. Did you get the sound part, though? ;) Rivertorch (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Whale-sounder is somewhere on the list of jobs I do not want. Here is hoping your new reality involves cubic wadloads of money crammed under your front door with no strings attached. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ivo Pauwels (author)

Dear River,

I just have written this page, which is a translation/adaptation from that, which I have originally written in Dutch and in French. Could you please have a look on it and correct my linguistic/grammatical errors.

Many thanks, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. My schedule is a bit challenging today, but I'll take a look sometime within the next 24 hours. Rivertorch (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for your appreciated help. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I made some edits, but more are needed. Some questions before I can proceed:

• In English-language culinary terminology, Fines herbes (actually a French term with French spelling) is a specific collection of several specific herbs. Did he really write a book on that or was it herbs in general? Growing them? Cooking with them?
• I don't know what "secure barbecue" means. If I had to guess, I'd guess it means either safe barbecuing or permanent barbecue installations (as opposed to portable grills). But you can just tell me :)
• I don't understand "ensured the photography". Did he take the photos? Write the accompanying text? Edit the books?
• In the second paragraph, I'm not sure what his role was at Groene Vingers. TV programs do have editors, but I suspect he was the producer or executive producer.

If I can fill in those blanks, that should take care of any translation problems. Other suggested improvements: expand the lead section to better summarize the content of the rest of the article; specifying the start and end years (not just the duration) of Pauwels's various professional positions; include the IPA pronunciation of his name. A couple more question: those names separated by commas in the infobox—that's his full name? Also, I wonder if the "(author)" disambiguation is needed in the article's title. Rivertorch (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear River,

Hereafter you have already some answers:

• In Ivo's book about the "fine herbs" it describes it from A to Z, i.e., their origin, how to cultivate them, and how to use them in the kitchen.
• It means "How to use barbecues safely"
• Ivo is sometimes a friend of the first author as well as co-author of some of these books (e.g., "Rozenraad"). For other books he was taking pictures for the author or providing them/her with pictures of his own photographic library.
• "Groene Vingers" was a television series about gardening. Ivo was not the CEO, but actually the person who wrote the script or, when written by others, Ivo reviewed the script thoroughly.

For IPA pronunciation, I never used this tool and I do not know how to use it. Could please help?

With my renewed thanks for your help, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why "Ivo Pauwels (author)"? Answer: In Flanders there are two well known persons with the name "Ivo Pauwels", my friend "Author" - see nl:Ivo Pauwels (auteur) and an "Actor" - see nl:Ivo Pauwels (acteur). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: Those names separated by commas in the infobox — that's indeed his full name. I have removed the commas. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to help, and I'll try to get back to it late tonight (mid-morning tomorrow in your time zone). The usual practice would be to make the en.wp title simply Ivo Pauwels unless there's a good chance of the actor Ivo Pauwels getting an article of his own at en.wp. Is the actor well-known in any English-speaking countries, I wonder.

I am not proficient in IPA and have little idea of Flemish pronunciation. There's probably a WikiProject or centralized noticeboard for IPA requests. I really don't know but I'll see if I can find it later. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that translated pages may need attribution. I see from the history that you're the only editor who has made any substantive contributions to the Dutch-language article, but to be on the safe side I'm placing a translation template on the talk page (of the English article). You may also want to note in an edit summary to the English article that it's a translation from nl.wp (see Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia). Rivertorch (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Ivo Pauwels (author)

Dear River,

Thank you for your style and grammatical changes to Ivo Pauwels (author).

Just one question: You have changed "Rosa 'Ella Elisabeth' – a rose arisen in Ivo Pauwels' garden" to "Rosa 'Ella Elisabeth' – a rose blooming in Pauwels' garden". Is this correct?

Rosa 'Ella Elisabeth' is a rose (a hybrid of uncertained parentage), which is born some years ago in Ivo's garden.
Ivo is now spreading this "obtention" (new cultivar) by cutting among friends and sells it for a humanitarian goal to visitors of his garden during his open days. The picture in the gallery is of the specimen which I got from Ivo and is growing in my garden.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was taking "arise" literally—a plant rising up from the ground. I think maybe "originate" might work here. Fixed now. Rivertorch (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Anytime. I fixed one more thing just now. Oh, and I keep forgetting to mention: since you'd begun the article with British spelling ("colours"), I continued in that vein ("programme"). Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous, accusing groundless changes

Dear River,

I have already three times reversed anonymous, accusing, groundless changes by 87.139.226.2 on page Symphony No. 9 (Bruckner). I guess it is another jealous composer/musicologue, who does not accept Letocart's completion. From contacts I have had with Letocart before writing this paragraph, I know that his work was appreciated as very valuable by W. Carragan, but not by Cohrs and Phillips... Letocart's work is also appreciated by John Berky ([1]) and the CD of it is put by him as exclusive.

Wan can we do? I would propose to temporary block 87.139.226.2 because of defamation. What do you think?

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC) PS: This anonymous user did also the same on the page of the French site. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm barely here today—just logging in to deal with anything on my watchlist. I'll be happy to look into the situation later (in the next 10–24 hours). In the meantime, don't revert anymore or you'll risk being blocked. Just explain your reasoning clearly on the article's talk page, and don't make any accusations about the other editor. There are several noticeboards and WikiProjects you could post a note at, but if there's any chance you've gone past three reverts, you'd probably better not. Rivertorch (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you think that defamation of a living person is occurring, you should report it here (and in that case your reverts should be exempt from WP:3RR.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

All right, I took a quick look (and made a couple of minor changes). The IP editor was certainly in the wrong to insert an unsourced allegation of copyright violations, and I have left a warning on their talk page. If they do it again, the Wikipedia:BLP_noticeboard is the best place to report it. In the meantime, I'm wondering about the two external links: Sébastien Letocart and Nicolas Couton. The Manual of Style deprecates that kind of link. If they meet notability standards, I'd suggest making them red links pending the creation of articles about them. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear River, thank you for your wise advice.

I will wait and let the Wikipedia:BLP_noticeboard know if this happens again. As you suggested, I have in put the names Sébastien Letocart and Nicolas Couton as red links.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear River,

User 87.139.226.2 has again changed this page. The writing is smoother than previously, but the intention looks still the same, i.e.:

• complimenting Carragan, and Samale & Co. completions,
• disparaging Letocart completion, especially by deleting the reference to his thesis and replacing it by "Letocart tried to justify his decisions in a commentary in French".

Please have look on it and, as an independent arbiter, agree or disagree with these changes.

Thank you again for your wise advice. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted it based on concern over neutral wording and opened a thread on the talk page which I hope both you and the IP will use. Discussion may or may not prove productive, but it should have begun long ago. Rivertorch (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Cast your eye upon this…

Hi, RT. Thought you might want to see this: [2][3] —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't shy away from controversial topics, do you? Your edit looks like a definite improvement. Rivertorch (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ayuh, controversial topics are my speciality; I absolutely live for the fast-paced, contentious, big, dramatic controversy in Dodge Dart and Chrysler Slant-6 engine and Headlamp and Automotive lighting and suchlike. ;-) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Slant-6? Stop, you're giving me flashbacks of cars I drove in a earlier millennium. Rivertorch (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Flashbacks? Not for me! That green machine in Dodge Lancer is mine. The red '71 in Dodge Dart was mine; I've now got a metallic-by-god-brown '73 Dart. With black vinyl top. And bench seat. Reminds me of my grandfather's last car (though his was a butter-yellow '72 with a froggy green interior). Now see whatchya done, I'm all spun up! =8^{D}} —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't realized you were retro (if only on the automotive front). What, no Chargers or 'cudas or other well-muscled machines in the stable? Rivertorch (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hellz no. Baccarudas and Chargers and suchlike have two doors too few and two cylinders too many. And when are Apple going to release a rotary-dial iPhone, dangit?!! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Check your email. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

ISO page debate

Hi Rivertorch, figured I'd thank you on your talk page, I appreciate the third opinion on the Revert war over the funding section on the ISO page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Socialist_Organization#Funding). You're right about it not being vandalism (I let my temper get the best of me), and I'd be thrilled to let disinterested editors keep a watch on all this. It just seemed like no one did, even after the page had this non-Wikipedia-standard material on it for days--I suppose that's probably par for the course for less traveled pages. So can I ask you?: I've started to look into dispute resolution, as recommended by Fastily, but there are so many different levels to enter into things. I'm skeptical that Jtizzi, whose Wikipedia authoring interest seems laser-focused on this one section of the ISO page, for whatever reason, will be convinced by my contention that there is no relevance for this information on the ISO page--that leaves very little room for collaboration. So what's the appropriate form of dispute resolution to pursue, do you think? --Alanmaass (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution of any kind would probably be jumping the gun at this point. The burden is on Jtizzi to make a persuasive case for including the disputed content. Until or unless that happens, there is consensus to exclude it. As long as discussion is proceeding on the talk page and the content isn't being restored, things are working the way they're supposed to. Rivertorch (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right, thanks much for the advice. --Alanmaass (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Letocart's completion

Dear River,

You have probably seen the comment of Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs, who is also not very happy with the anonymous changes.
According to his professional advice, I have added a short section Further Finale completions, to which I added links for two of these completions. I however, have doubts whether the link to Marshall Fine is concerning the same person...

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I made some minor grammatical corrections and delinked Fine. Further comments on the talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, River. I have followed your suggestions and that of B-J. Cohrs. Hopefully you find it now OK. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Colin Firth

Hi there. First of all, thank you for your work—but please be careful when reverting content removal in WP:BLP articles. In many cases, they are legitimate challenges, not vandalism. This was one such edit: the cited source actually did not support the claim in any way, and I have therefore removed the passage from the article again. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 06:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I got distracted and didn't check the linked article except (1) to confirm that it was actually a Telegraph news article and (2) to read the subhead, which states that Firth "has confessed to having little support for the beloved monarch's descendants – because he is a republican." It's a bit of a stretch to say the source "did not support the claim in any way", but I certainly would agree that it didn't support it entirely, and therefore the removal of the text was constructive. I will strike my warning on the IP's talkpage. Rivertorch (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't. You've wielded your mop. Thanks again. Rivertorch (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at NatGertler's talk page.
Message added 06:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Heh.

Talkback

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at Steven Zhang's talk page.
Message added 06:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied.

TFD

Hi, as requested, the TFD is here. ϢereSpielChequers 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Older talk archive | Newer talk archive | Current talk page