User talk:Rivertorch/Archive10

 R I V E R T O R C H TALK ARCHIVE MID 2012 '''This page is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it.'''

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account activation codes have been emailed.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

PC or not PC
Either way, thanks much for your comments ... I think they're helping the process tremendously. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope you're right. Thank you for the kind words. Rivertorch (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Standard disclaimer: if a person responds to a comment and then they get hounded with "well what about ...", it may become unpleasant and they may stop responding, which is not what I want. So stop me at any time. I agree with the gist of the argument you just made ... but I take it as a note of caution, not a stopper.  I mean, if I applied for a job at a newspaper, and they said okay, you can start working on tomorrow's edition, I wouldn't say, "I'm sorry, that's just not interesting enough for me, I wanted to work on the real version of the paper, today's edition." But that underscores that the newbies have to actually believe that the version that everyone is working on together has to actually get published reasonably soon, with minimal editorial interference from The Powers That Be. I'm not sure how we convince people of that; statistics showing that that's what usually happens might help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I see what you mean, although your comparison is a bit shaky. At a newspaper, even the most experienced reporters and editors are happy to do advance work on tomorrow's edition. Serious journalism, such as investigative stories, requires all manner of tasks that provide no quick gratification (and often enough turn out to be blind alleys). Also, I can't imagine what sort of newspaper employee could expect little interference from The Powers That Be. Having some familiarity with both sides of the demarcation line between reporters and editors, I can assure you that "editorial interference" is a normal and positive thing at a newspaper. To put it in a more apt, if tortured, metaphor, the equivalent of PC at a newspaper would be something like this: strangers read over the reporter's shoulder and periodically elbow in and delete what he or she has just written. Rivertorch (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That all sounds good to me. Still, I'd be surprised if you don't agree with my "but that underscores ..." sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "It's easy to say "don't understaff it" but not so easy to do.": I'll reply to this one here also, if that's okay. (My responses in all discussions tend to be spartan, writing something that long was almost painful! I want to try to avoid adding to it except when someone says something that indicates a flaw or something I need to clarify.) I think there's a reason for my optimism that not everyone is going to share: you would think given our resources that the pool of article reviewers we have (at GAN, etc.) couldn't possibly cover all the articles under review in all processes ... but somehow we manage. I think the questions coming up on PC pages will be a subset of the questions we encounter at article reviews ... except instead of having to cover every aspect of the article, we will in general only have to wait until one issue is resolved (and hopefully by normal editing of the PC page by the community rather than by the reviewer), not 20 issues. The strategies that reviewers use to cover all the bases are manifold; it's impossible to sketch out how it all works here (in fact, I couldn't even begin to tell you, there's so much going on).  I can only point and say: at the end of the day, we've got everything done that needs doing, and article reviewing is a much, much bigger job than PC-reviewing a single article could ever be. But I can understand how people who haven't really dug in and seen the magic work up close and personal might have diferent expectations; the workload and experiences of many admins might incline a person toward pessimism (and they might be right, too). - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, a procedural note. While I value your insights and am always glad to hear from you on my talk page, I think that at least some of what you've said might be more helpful at the RfC talk page, where more people would see it. It's up to you if you want to copy any of it there. The RfC itself is over, so what better time for real discussion to begin! (irony)
 * I need to head out the door very soon, so I'll make this brief for now. I think that "reviewer" in the PC sense has nothing to do with "reviewer" in the article assessment sense, and I frankly don't see why it should. Determining whether a given edit is constructive or not requires a set of skills rather different from those used for evaluating an entire article, it seems to me. As far as I can tell, having never been involved in it, the latter is a specialized process requiring significant attention span, while in most cases the former can be done with pretty fair accuracy in mere seconds by anyone with a basic understanding of the core content policies. Rivertorch (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree that the two senses of "reviewer" don't have to have anything to do with each other ... but I hope, nevertheless, that people with wide-ranging skill sets sign up to do some reviewing. It will give us opportunities to net more new users when they meet knowledgeable Wikipedians, and it will model good behavior for other PC-reviewers, and it will lessen the chances that we make the error of rejecting any form of PC when some form could have worked, with better reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'm not sure how many editors active in article assessment would be interested in devoting much of their time to patrolling pending changes beyond their own watchlists. And I'm far from sure that rejecting any form of PC would be an error. You might as well know: at this point, I'm hopeful that PC won't be implemented or, failing that, that consensus will emerge before too long an interval to turn it off again. Having said that, I should probably hasten to add that I'm willing to do what I can to avoid its being a total disaster however long it's with us. If it must be with us, that is. But I don't see much likelihood of its being a net positive, no matter how skillfully we blunt its rough edges. Rivertorch (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Phobia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.  JamisonGuestbookUserboxes   09:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted Jamison's edit. - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. "Asses". Much obliged! Rivertorch (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

record producer
Hi Rivertorch - thanks for the positive comments - sorry I didn't have time to explain in the markup notes but I'll add sources as soon as I can - I was bascially just writing that up quickly in my break times at work today - I have sources at home I will refer to - I just don't have the details handy. Thasnk for your interest.

cheers Dunks (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! Thanks for your quick reply. Rivertorch (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Mmm . . . (wiping foam away) . . . delicious. Guess I'd better log out before I finish it. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Essay
FYI: This user made a pretty good start with Shoot it early I think. It deserves comments, promotion, attention and expansion by other users I think. History2007 (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It needs a copyedit, for sure. It does look interesting. I'll try to give it some time early tomorrow. Rivertorch (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. There is no rush, it is a long term project really. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good, because I'm not quite "here" tonight. I'd rather give it full attention later than partial attention now. Rivertorch (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On that note I received no response about user attrition.... A sign or user attrition? I have this very uneasy feeling that more and more experienced users are packing up and leaving, and no one even has any clear idea of the extent of the loss. I have seen some good users just shrug their shoulders and walk after several years, and the new users I see are far too oriented towards COI edits, given that Wikipedia is now even a better promotional vehicle than Craigslist. I managed to talk Aleksandar Simić to cut back to size, but Sheela Murthy is so promotional, I did not even bother to complain or tag it... It would have taken too much effort. And then there was this never ending COI issue at Bell's Theorem. All of this absorbs effort that could have gone into fixing articles, but we do seem to be losing, and the tide is turning against quality, towards self promotion now. That was why I think some model of article degradation needs to be built, so some policy can be based on it. Wikipedia is not a ghost town yet,... but.... History2007 (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Having followed you here from the help desk, I did a quick and dirty copyedit of the first few sections of the essay. It needs lots of work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine, I do not mind. We may have to pay rent to Rivertorch for using his talk page, however... kidding. As on the essay talk page, I think it is a good idea, and apart from copy editing, needs further improvement. Many companies have detailed models of "lifecycle" for both their products and customers. I think at some point (the sooner the better) we should engage part of the community to get an idea of a "page lifecycle", where the page starts as a stub then grows and improves then eventually may either stabilizes or degrade and fall into disrepair. What Incnis Mrsi started in that essay was the beginning of a "page degradation model". It needs thought but eventually Wikipedia needs that, and will help clarify how pages grow and flourish or die a slow death. Not all pages fall into disprepair however. I have seen pages that continue to remain high quality and in good shape. The key is to figure out how to make that happen more often. Eventually, I also hope to see a "editor lifecycle model" where editors start with many hopes and ideals, then gradually meet the realities of conflicting opinions, get a few 3O decisions that upset them, shrug their shoulders and walk away disillusioned. But that should probably happen later, after we have figured out the page growth and degradation issues. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to discuss it here. (Rent, while optional, is much appreciated. Semi-kidding . . . couldn't we issue wikicurrency or something?) If I get more than ten uninterrupted minutes sometime soon, I might even join in. Rivertorch (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In time Wikicurrency will arrive I think. Barnstars are some type of wikistoneage coin, I think. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And a user subpage full of barnstars plus $10 will buy you a calorie-laden oversized coffee drink at Starbucks. Tell you what, I do think Incnis Mrsi is onto something. Reading the essay actually made me feel guilty because of how often I see "degradation" without lifting a finger to put a stop to it. It's a delicate balance, really. Fixing good-faith edits that degrade articles can be quite time-consuming, and I often don't have the time, but at the same time simply undoing the offending edit might be discouraging to a generally competent newbie who made it in a moment of carelessness. There are days when I find myself undoing lots of edits that I'd feel much better about modifying. It's an even worse dilemma when a given edit improves an article in one place and degrades it in another: if the degradation is serious and I don't have time to go in and manually undo that part of the edit, all I can do is undo the whole thing, say why in the edit summary, and hope the other editor will come back, read my edit summary, and put the good part back in. Rivertorch (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he is on to something, for sure. As I said on the talk there, what needs to be done is to build one of those fishbone diagrams that show the multiple elements that contribute to degradation. I could do that, but it would be just based on my experiences with pages, and getting a wider perspective is necessary, say from 3-5 editors. More than 5 people in the early stages will make it hard to do. How do we get 3 more people? Incnis Mrsi said semi-retired, but if he continues, the two of us, then we need 2 more people. Fuhghettaboutit plus one more? History2007 (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. I can think of several possibles. How do you see the five of us going about it? I'm not much of a diagram-builder. Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not as much a diagram as a list. Here are my first rough suggestions for the causes:


 * Main 2-3 authors retire, gradual IP edits add WP:OR.
 * A new POV-rich editor arrives and changes and debates
 * COI-driven editor comes in and makes changes when no one is watching the page
 * Article is technology oriented and gets outdated.
 * etc....


 * So how do you think degradation happens? What are examples of articles that have degraded? How did it happen? History2007 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll give it some thought. Off the top of my head, degradation happens in myriad ways. I'm sure I can come up with examples and laboriously analyze how it happened, but is that sort of anecdotal evidence going to be helpful? Rivertorch (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Even in more complex cases such as manufacturing, there are only a few key causes, e.g. Machine (technology),Method (process),Material,Man Power, Measurement, Mother Nature. And just making those types of lists has made a tremendous difference there. It does not need to be perfect, any help will be help. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All right, then. Let me see what I can come up with in the next day or two. If you're still looking for someone else to help with this, what about either User:Dank or User:Slakr? Rivertorch (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, please ask them both, as well as Blade, if you like given that he is interested in these things and is very logical. We could also ask Fuhghettaboutit and then with a 50% acceptance ratio if 2 out of the 4 accept we are fine. Even if all 4 accept it is still OK. But beyond that will be too many as a start. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is your idea, so I think you should ask them. I just put the names forward as folks who probably would have something constructive to add if they happened to be interested. Re Blade, I wouldn't bother any of the RfC closers right now; they have enough to deal with, including very silly distractions. Rivertorch (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I asked all 3 users. History2007 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * History2007, there are relatively few Wikipedians with the insight, experience and reputation needed to help in a "managerial" role with really serious problems. The rest of us are most effective working within one of the many successful subcommunities or wikiprojects. Your article-writing skills are really substantial; you'd fit right in with any of the "reviewing" communities or with any of the history-related wikiprojects. I think you'll find that a lot of FAC reviewers sharing your horror of all the crap they come across on-wiki, and we'd love to have you as a reviewer, in any capacity and with any specialties.
 * Having said that, as soon as the Pending Changes closing statements are issued, we'll really need some clerk-ish help getting people to talk and organizing the results of the discussions, and if you want to help with that, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the Follow-up thread at the end of my talk page? I was successfully talked out of doing an Rfa.... so I am not sure of what there will be along those paths. History2007 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

One big point about attrition that I've seen in a few cases is that, after a few years, editors want to return to "real life", particularly if they developed the content they came here initially to build. I don't know how to keep them from doing so, but maybe trying to create some sort of annual reunion where some of them can come back for a brief time, maybe around summer vacation, and offer pointers about the articles they left some time earlier?

I know a lot of articles where, unfortunately, POV pushing and incivility by the POV pushers push good editors away. We might need a quicker trigger finger on some articles, but it's sometimes hard to get other editors involved.

My only real hope for the continued quality of the content is a broadened Pending Changes, which might restrict editing of good articles, like maybe MILHIST B-grade articles that are unlikely to get substantial changes often, like those about the dead, major institutions, and the like, to established editors. That would reduce the number of such edits, and make it easier for a few more old hands, not necessarily experts, to get involved. Maybe. If we offered hints to new editors about articles that don't exist yet, and maybe give them an idea for sources available, that might help keep some newbies too. I do hope something substantial comes from the Pending Changes decision, though. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the essay is on the right track really as to why articles degrade. I think it's mostly to do with resources (the lack thereof) coupled with the sheer massiveness of what we've undertaken. Each person only has so much time, only so many articles that can be on their watchlist and be kept track of, and were drowning in a sea of kludge where the diamonds are so buried beneath the weight of poor content and the massive resources needed that are siphoned off to managing that losing battle that it is impossible to keep the diamonds shining. We would need a sea change to fix this though. I've talked about what to do about this before but I know it's so far away from anything that could ever gain consensus that it's utterly unrealistic to even broach; it's this: we must free up our resources by getting rid of the kludge, so we can see the forest for the trees. A very unpopular idea; to many, sacrilege. I would have us put in place something like Requests for verification and Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles and start winnowing all the thousands upon thousands (maybe over a million) of unsourced or barely sourced articles sitting around, inevitably, most of the time, full of misinformation. Every proposal for making a pragmatic deletion process based on lack of sources has been shot down though. Anyway, it may be a contributing factor but I don't think most people have the problem of not pulling the trigger when they see bad edits. We degrade because we can't focus on quality while we're always digging our way out of a hole.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the essay, I see it as being more about how, rather than why, articles degrade. One of its most insightful points, I think, is about earlier, damaging edits being masked by subsequent, constructive ones made by users who don't check the edit history. Honestly, who does check the edit history every time they make a small correction or undo a single problematic edit? I sure don't. I could, but then there'd be other things I wouldn't have time to do. Asking editors to diligently scrutinize page histories is basically asking for a sea change in the way lots of us spend our time here, and I'm not sure it's feasible. Anyway, you're quite right—each of us has limited time, and there's no way to keep track of the whole encyclopedia. About twice a year, I dump about half of my watchlist because it has grown absolutely unmanageable, and I do so knowing full well that many of the articles I'm removing aren't well watched. In some cases I may have constituted the entire line of defense against an onslaught of bad edits, and unless some random new page patroller happens to be in the right place at the right time, it's a lost cause. But it doesn't even take a shrinking watchlist—just taking a couple days off is all that's needed for degradation to enter an article. How many times do I find myself saying, "Now how the hell did that get in there?" Well, it slipped in under the radar, and the radar is inherenty faulty; that's how. (Some might say I've just made the case for flagged revisions, but I believe that would just be trading one set of problems for another, even worse set.) As a variation on your idea about a "pragmatic deletion process", how about, instead of deleting unsourced articles, shifting them into a new namespace where various individual editors and WikiProjects could source them, merge them, or delete them at a measured pace? To unregistered users, they could be either completely inaccessible or displayed in read-only form (and, if the latter, clearly marked as unsourced and potentially unreliable). This approach would have several advantages, I think, not the least of which that it probably would be more palatable to the community. John Carter, we'll have to agree to disagree about pending changes, but your point about its being hard to get other editors involved reminded me of an idea that's been rattling around in my head for a while. I haven't mentioned it yet because it's still in embryonic form (and would probably elicit groans from one end of the wiki to the other). In short, it would involve the creation of yet another noticeboard (I know, I know!) for editors who are simply looking for another pair of eyes on an article. It wouldn't be about resolving disputes or reporting policy violations—just provide a mechanism to get someone else to take a look. There are various situations where this would be helpful. For instance, even longtime editors with unblemished records run the risk of being blocked (or, almost as bad, admonished in dehumanizing tones) for "edit warring" to keep articles free of absolute, irredeemable crap (added in the best of faith, of course). There are various accepted and proper ways to handle such cases, of course—I usually start by asking for semiprotection, but the bar is so low for autoconfirmed status that it's often pointless—but in most cases all that's really needed is just another editor or two to watch the article and revert the bad edits. I'm rambling and ranting, so enough for now. Thanks to all who have commented. Sorry, History2007, if it's all gotten a bit off topic. One idea leads to another. Rivertorch (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the bar is fairly low for autoreviewer. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more active work to remove it on one or more noticeboards, like for one serious instance of POV pushing. Regarding getting another pair of eyes, that can be problematic, because, even if you get one, they might be less than competent to deal with the problem. I got a message regarding Soka Gakkai on my user talk page awhile ago along these lines. It scares me a little that I am one of the few active editors regarding Buddhism, which I don't know that well. And, in this case, it seems to me that both of the "combatants" are taken a wrong position. If you might want to get involved there, I certainly wouldn't object. We do try to have the various WikiProjects available for additional eyes, but in a lot of them there aren't that many active editors. If you think I would ever be of use to you in such a regard, though, let me know. I can't promise that I can do much, but I can try to do what I can. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. I may take you up on it someday. I have taken a peek at Soka Gakkai but am totally unfamiliar with the subject matter of the article, so it would be pointless for me to try to make an impartial appraisal of what's going on. If I don't understand the topic well enough to assess the dispute, my involvement probably wouldn't be a net plus. Rivertorch (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I have not responded. I was working on this report. The discussion above has started to generate valuable items in my view, and I will try to categorize them in a day or two. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. Take your time. (I do!) Rivertorch (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:American cuisine
I set a poll up here, please contribute. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You preface the section by saying the poll is to "to see what consensus we have" and ask participants to "keep the comments to a minimum". What you seem to be implying is that you want people just to vote, and I don't think that's a very good way of determining consensus. The RfC is in progress—why not let it run its course and then ask for an uninvolved party to close it? Rivertorch (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the answers are all over the place in a massive wall of text and making heads or tales of it is a mess. The RfC is gone astray and I am trying to get it back on course. I tweaked the heading to make my reasoning more clear--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As RfCs go, this one isn't especially massive, and I doubt that any experienced, uninvolved editor would have much trouble sifting through it. Nonetheless, I'll go ahead and say something in your poll. Rivertorch (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for chiming in. My main issue is keeping the RfC on track and on subject. This is an attempt to stay on that track and maintain the focus of the poll. I agree that we should leave it in place for thirty days and that an uninvolved party should be responsible for closing it. I will post this in the preface. Thank you for bringing these points up. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:American cuisine
You can still vote in the poll here. It was closed by a guy who does not want a picture under any circumstances and is even willing to cheat to get that done. The closure was part of his POV-actions on this template. Night of the Big Wind talk  10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that comment is particularly helpful. While I wish Viriditas hadn't unilaterally decided to close the poll, I also wish that Jeremy hadn't unilaterally decided to open it in the first place—an action which looked quite a lot like interfering with the natural progression of an RfC. I'm assuming good faith of everyone involved thus far, including you, whose unilateral decision to undo Viriditas was had the effect of nuking my comment (although that's apparently been fixed now). Now what's the common thread between these three actions? They're all unilateral. "Bold" is a good thing in articles but not so good in the midst of talk page disagreements. Better in these cases to slow down and try to find agreement each step of the way, I do believe. Rivertorch (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Bora Bora external link
Hi Rivertorch. Regarding I have no burden one way or the other whether or not the "How to get to Bora Bora" link is in the article or not. I didn't add it to the article, just moved it to an appropriate location (if the link is kept.) I've been repeatedly removing spam links from that article. I let this one stay because there is no advertising on the site, and it lists numerous, unrelated services regarding travel to this site, for which the site receives not compensation that I can tell. Therefore I deemed it to have further useful information potentially useful to a reader not included in article, but also not particularly useful to an encyclopedia article itself. I'll leave it to you whether to re-insert or not. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for helping to keep linkspam out of the article; it's a neverending struggle. There is always room for disagreement on how high the bar should be for such links. As for this one, it's true that it's not blatantly, egregiously commercial like many of the others that you and I have removed. However, all it contains is a list of airlines plus a helicopter outfit and two boat service providers, with no way to tell whether the entries are comprehensive or reliable or presented free of compensation, and a prominent field for capturing the visitor's email address with the entreaty ("Join Now!"). In other words, it fails to provide verifiably trustworthy information of an encyclopedic nature as an adjunct to the article, which is what an external link should do. That's the way I see it, anyway. If you disagree strongly, I won't object to your adding it again, but I think it's a slippery slope. Rivertorch (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent and sound reasoning. I had missed the "Join Now" section.  As such, I agree this link shouldn't appear.  Perhaps I have become too desensitized because of all the unbelievably blatant advertising sites I've removed from various articles.  Thank *you* for your vigilance.   78.26  (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. Desensitization is a risk, but so is oversensitization, and I'm never sorry to be second-guessed on such things. If your watchlist has room for one more entry, you might help keep an eye on Seychelles, another one that gets stealthy links added from time to time. Rivertorch (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You

 * Thank you so much! That means a lot to me. Rivertorch (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversial policy about parenthetical disambiguation.
In Wikipedia talk:Article titles I started a crucial discussion about the controversial policy that some people (improperly) uses to reject the RM Musical scale → Scale (music). I would love to have your support. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look but would need to study it in some depth before commenting intelligently. Given RL demands and preexisting on-wiki priorities, I'm doubtful I'll get back to it soon, but you never know. . . . Rivertorch (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Homophobia
Hi Rivertorch, just wondering if you had any more ideas on this since it shows no sign of stopping and a certain editor has a case of WP:IDHT, which has lasted around (?) 4 months now. Thanks and have a nice day/evening  J e n o v a  20 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at it today but was disappointed to see on my watchlist that it was continuing as of yesterday. While I think you're right about IDHT and said so some while ago, it takes two to tango. He has said repeatedly that he was done with the discussion for now, and has indicated he'd try to come up with something in the way of sources, yet people keep responding. Why??? Not everything requires a response. He's not disrupting the article, so my sense of it is let him have the last word. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the discussion actually appears to be attracting more new contributors to it, with none agreeing with the editor in question. It's not good though and it really is just a campaign against homophobia as there's no similar discussion at the Islamophobia or semiticism articles. The problem is do we watch this go on and consume and transform the talk page into a forum so that it cannot as easily be used to improve the article, or do we have other options?
 * I know you suggested leaving it alone but more contributors are showing up and it just might not let up or get any better.
 * Thanks and have a nice day/evening  J e n o v a  20 18:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's been nothing new for over 48 hours now. We can't prevent random editors who happen along from joining the fray, nor can we prevent someone from replying to them if they do. But we can opt out of further discussion if we choose, and that's going to be my choice for the time being. Four weeks from now, there needs to be either evidence or a substantive new argument; otherwise, barring an RfA that results in a finding to the contrary, the discussion will be closed with consensus suggesting no WP:NPOV violation, as far as I'm concerned. No reason to cross that bridge before we come to it, of course. Incidentally, one of the reasons I'm trying to be exceptionally patient is that sometimes—albeit rarely—one seemingly tendentious editor turns out to have a valid point that they're just not expressing very well. It has happened before that I've been persuaded by an argument I initially dismissed out of hand but later came to find compelling. The chances of that occurring here seem remote, but it's not inconceivable. In any event, we're not talking about an SPA or a newbie but rather an established editor who makes constructive contributions in other areas, so I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, just as I'd hope he gave it to me if the roles somehow were reversed. I like your "round in circles" template, btw. Six years on the wiki, and I never noticed that one before. Rivertorch (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's the charm of Wikipedia. There's always more stuff to learn and more you haven't seen before. I'm staying off Talk:Homophobia as we agreed. You have a nice day/evening Rivertorch  J e n o v a  20 08:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma
Sorry you have been dragged into this mess over the Kappa Sigma organization Wiki page. The basic problem is that Kappa Sigma claims that it has roots in a 15th century organization in Italy. In the early editions of Baird's fraternity Manuel, the name of that organization is mentioned. In more modern versions it is not. The problem is that Kappa Sigma today considers that information a secret. However, because Baird's Manuel is part of the public record and in Google's books, anyone who wants to find the information can find it.

A year or so ago, an editor wanted to ensure that all of Kappa Sigma's secrets were on the page, and most of those were deleted as not properly sourced. However, as part of the consensus that was attempted, the name of the 15th century order was inserted because it was properly referenced and was part of what the fraternity claims is part of its traditional founding. --Enos733 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I find the whole thing incredibly silly. Members of an fraternity ham-handedly trying to purge Wikipedia of "secrets" by edit warring (thus calling attention to the material they'd like hidden), emailing OTRS with semi-literate requests that run afoul of basic policy . . . these people are nominally adults, right? And university students? Their behavior doesn't exactly reflect well on their organization. Anyway, I've replied to your post on the AfD page. The key is having enough people watching the article to ensure that those following consensus don't get caught in the 3RR trap. If the content disappears for hours or even days before being reinserted, it's no big deal. Rivertorch (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on list of micronations Talk page
Sorry for the late response, I hope you can accept this apology. Frills aside, I would like to note that the very definition of micronation means that it is obscure and relatively unknown. By the way, I have now posted stuff on wikia, and they welcome me there.

Sidenote: I spelled Wyhzette wrong. it is W-y-h-z-e-t-t-e. Also, google results with the heading 'Paul's Blog Herald' are related to my micronation, which, I must say bluntly, proves you wrong in your assumption that many articles are not related to my mircronation. And if you are right, what of it? I am considered notable enough on the Micronations Wiki. I hope I was not to blunt or deconstructive in my criticism. Kranton54 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Kranton54


 * Hi, Kranton. My assertion wasn't wrong; it applied to a search I ran based on your misspelling. In any event, my response was based largely on the question of notability, a guideline which enjoys broad consensus and which I was enforcing in considering your request. If Wyhzette meets that guideline, then it is eligible for its own Wikipedia article. And if it has its own article, it's eligible for inclusion at List of micronations. I'm sure you can imagine how quickly such "list of" articles would grow out control if such limits weren't in place. Please don't be offended if Wikipedia's ideas of notability differ from your own. This happens to almost everyone and is just a fact of life around here. You might take a look at Notability in Wikipedia (note: it's an article, not a guideline or policy page) for a broad overview of the subject. Rivertorch (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. Thanks. However, when I started reading the notability article, it mentioned that blogs were not acceptable sources of info. In this case, Wyhzette's only reliable sources of information come from the Wiki for MicroNations which in turn is linked to the first reliable source, my blog. Can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kranton54 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * General notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As far as I can tell, your blog fails two elements of that requirement. Take a look at the sources in the respective References sections of Micronation and List of micronations. No guarantee they're all kosher—in fact, I'm confident that some of them don't constitute a proper basis for establishing notability—but a quick glance reveals media such as daily newspapers, books from major publishers, and the like. The guideline for identifying reliable sources is here. Here are a couple of ideas, in case you really want to pursue this. There's a Notability noticeboard, where you can post questions about the notability policy as it pertains to a particular article (or potential future article). And there's a WikiProject Micronations; it doesn't look very active, but if you ask at its talk page perhaps someone more familiar with the subject could offer advice. Bottom line: if it all comes down to your blog, it's not gonna fly. There are many worthy endeavors in the world that receive no coverage in Wikipedia. That's just the way it is. Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! Also, I'll need all the luck I can get--I'll get interviewed by the Daily Press sometime this week (concerning Wyhzette) and I will also discuss Wyhzette with the Mayor the week after next. The Daily Press, being from the small town of Victorville, I hope, can be a reliable and provide significant coverage. If all else fails, I will have to resort to being stuck on square one: having only my blog and the wiki page. Also, I would like to add here that the reality is that most micronations are either: defunct, sell needless merchandise, are a form of political protest, or a combo thereof. Mine doesn't fall into ANY of these categories, which, needless to say, may make some people upset and others simply turn away from my micronation altogether. People may not know this, but the purpose of Wyhzette is to combine the local communities in and near Victorville with Wikipedian and Boy Scout (I'm a Boy Scout btw) principles. This will really benefit the community, but if people be apathetic or just get enraged at me for not creating a 'typical' micronation, I'm really at a loss. Kranton54 (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Kranton54
 * I shudder to think what principles Wikipedia and the Boy Scouts might have in common, but whatever. Just ask yourself this (and it's a rhetorical question): Why is it important to you for your micronation to be mentioned in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a tool for publicizing anyone's personal projects, and you have a conflict of interest anyway. When I said "good luck", I meant in general—not with getting your micronation into Wikipedia. I reiterate that wish now. Rivertorch (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, but to me, it's a never ending cycle. People don't know about Wyhzette--> I try to publicize it in some way--> I'm turned away because of various reasons, one of them being that I'm not NOTABLE enough-->People don't know about Wyhzette. Also, I don't think you can deny, everything on wikimedia projects are publicized in one way or the other, even though as hard as people say they aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kranton54 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Exodus International
Hi Rivertorch. Sorry to draw you into this but words couldn't express how much i would appreciate your oversight on this article while Lionelt is working there to remove anything he doesn't agree with under the guise of copyediting or BLP violation. Thanks in advance and hopefully you can be a help here. Have a nice day ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit pressed for time just now. I'll be lucky if I can get through my watchlist before I need to go, then I'll be offline for many hours. Consider posting something at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to get some more eyes on it in the meantime. Remember: everything removed from an article can be put back again, so there's probably no crisis even if it feels like there is. Rivertorch (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion and good luck with your watchlist. I personally find i can trim down my watchlist to under 100 articles once things settle down every so often. I was amazed to once be told by User:Worm That Turned he has 1000+ articles on his watchlist!! I could never let it get that bad! Have a nice day Rivertorch and thanks again ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I took a quick look at the article and didn't see anything glaringly horrible. It sure needs a good copyedit, and I may get around to that at some point if no one else does it first. I gather from the talk page that there was some kerfuffle over alleged plagiarism and copyright. It's not plagiarism if you make it abundantly clear that it's someone else's words, and I think you did that. Copyvio I have no firm opinion on—it's a policy area I neither know nor care much about—although quotes of that length usually seem to fall within fair use parameters, from what I've seen. Under 100 articles—yeah, I remember that, but it's been a long time. I'm running between 1000 and 1100 now, and that was after a major culling just a few weeks ago. What makes it unusable half the time isn't articles but stuff like Village Pump and RfCs and the like. The watchlist basically becomes unusable if I don't keep pages like that off it. Rivertorch (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, there was a kerfuffle. Abusing BLP policy to censor information from what i saw and from what Viriditas also commented on. I'm trying to cull my watchlist down again too so i have more time for pet projects or the to-do list.
 * Thanks and have a nice day Rivertorch. And let me know if you need anything ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! You're very kind. (I hope I'm not full of drama, though!) Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, no you're far more useful! ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have a room =P bloody vandals…have a nice day River ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Kile Glover's first name reverted
Hi River. User:The_Ultimate_Koopa changed the spelling of Kile Glover's back to the wrong spelling (Kyle) on Usher. You had corrected it a few days ago. Here is the edit he made today. Can you please put it back to the correct spelling?

Also, I made a new edit request here a few days ago, but it hasn't be responded to yet.

Thanks! --76.189.98.15 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. Rivertorch (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: responded there, made some changes per your suggestions. You seem to have a clue. Ever think about creating an account? Rivertorch (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I really liked your change of "jet ski" to "personal water craft." I really don't think the name of the lake is important at all, but your point about giving context is good in terms of readers knowing that it happened on a lake and not somewhere else, like someone's driveway, etc. I think just saying "on a lake" would be appropriate. But I'm fine with whatever you think is best. And your "clue" comment was so funny. And appreciated. Thanks! --76.189.98.15 (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC) 16:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

John Leguizama edit legitimate?
River, User:Marine_69-71 removed content from John Leguizamo about an award Leguizamo received, with the edit reason as "Removed 'Trivia' per policy." The content is even cited. How is an actor winning an award considered "trivia"? And what "policy" is Marine referring to? Just wanted you to determine if it was a legitimate edit. The edit is here. Thanks. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks as though what he removed as trivia wasn't the award part but rather the bit about being a Mets fan. Of course, the person to ask about that is really Marine, who has been here since the halcyon days of 2004 and is hardly prone to making illegitimate edits. Btw, I see that you—or someone (identity never being certain when it comes to IP editors)—have repeatedly blanked your talk page, removing both welcome messages and warnings. That is permitted, but combined with your seeming to know your way around the project, it gives me the heebie-jeebies. If you already have an account, you should use it. If not, you should get one. Rivertorch (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, sounds good. Sorry, I totally misread Marine's edit. As far as blanking my talk page, I actually didn't know it could even be done until a couple of administrators I know advised me about it via User talk pages that I could do it. I had mentioned that I wished I could keep my talk page neat and clean by removing issues that have already been completed. That's when they told me I was allowed to archive or just clear the page if I prefer. My IP is dynamic - my provider automatically changes it several times a month - so that's why I like to clear my talk page. Thanks for the info! --76.189.98.15 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC) 19:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See, that's one of the problems with IP editing. You're not an IP, you're a human being and a Wikipedian, but unless you're always associated with the same IP no one can be sure that you are you. People claiming to be you could show up here next week and next year, editing from different IPs, and I'd have to take their word for it that they are you. By the same token, someone claiming not to be you could appear tomorrow, editing from the same IP, and I'd have to assume it wasn't you. While their constructive contributions are welcomed, IP editors are essentially non-entities; it can't be helped. Registering removes those doubts, frees you from being subjected to warnings directed toward other editors, and allows you to own everything you do—the accomplishments as well as the mistakes. Rivertorch (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha, I'm not worried at all about someone trying to impersonate me. I have all my old IPs saved from over the years and I check the contributions log on them from time to time. So far, no one else has ever used any of them. And I don't think anyone would want to be me anyway. But, hey, if someone wants to be me for some strange reason, let 'em enjoy it. :P One of my good admin buddies has lectured me a few times about creating an account, but he knows I prefer not to because there are some mean, troublemaker users on Wikipedia who enjoy bothering other users. Thanks again for the info and all your help, River! --76.189.98.15 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Indenting
(Note: thread began here.)

All I did was outdent and reallign for readability. No refactoring (or at least I didn't intend any). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. The new and "improved" diff view makes it very hard to tell what's going on sometimes. Fwiw, I'm sure that your changes were well intended, and I don't doubt they may have enhanced the clarity. I do tend to worry about changes to indentation because one little slip-up can make it look as if someone replied to a different editor than the one they actually replied to. Rivertorch (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do try my best to make sure they are logically alligned and that the replies are kept with the posts they are responding to. Also, I used our official outdent template to keep things straight. Sorry, but on my browser settings, deep indents run off the screen and are unreadable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

a fine Wikipedian indeed

 * Gosh, thanks! You must have caught me on a good day. —the often terse Rivertorch (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hi Rivertorch, although you only did one revert at LGBT parenting and nobody has broken the 3RR as far as I can tell, what's happening there is still edit warring and I'm required to notify you that I opened a case about it. Have a good one... 17:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Technically, while you're correct to notify all users you mention at that noticeboard, it isn't necessary to mention everyone who has reverted—just those who have done so disruptively (e.g., reverting multiple times without discussion). Assuming you were trying to notify everyone who has reverted there over the past week, you missed Valm 99, who made one edit in support of the IP 91.146.243.37's preferred version (and used a misleading edit summary in doing so). In any event, it is that IP who has added the disputed content five times; they have declined thus far to open a discussion, and the burden is on them to do so. If they continue in that vein when protection expires, they are subject to a final warning and then blocking if they persist. While the right version was fortunately protected in this instance, it could have been handled without protecting the page. Rivertorch (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I'm new to filing this sort of reqeust.  I did indeed notify Valm99, check his talk page:  User_talk:Valm99 and I did mention the misleading edit summary at WP:EWN.  The page got full-protected within minutes of my posting the report so apparently at least one admin agreed that was the way to go.  When you say "it could have been handled without protecting the page", I'm not sure what you're hinting at?  Cheers...   19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that you'd notified Valm99. It's not the first thing I didn't see today—I'm a bit under the weather this week and am finding it fatiguing to stare at the monitor for very long. What I meant about not protecting the page is simply that when one or two non-autoconfirmed users repeatedly edit against consensus and aren't even making any effort to discuss, it might be better dealt with by removing access from the user(s) in question, not everyone else. I'm not really second-guessing the admin in this case—full protection for a week will do no harm—but semi-protection would have done the trick, and so would issuing a final warning to the IP and following it with a block, if necessary. None of which has anything to do with your report at WP:EWN, which stopped the edit warring and thus served its purpose. I didn't really mean to nitpick, and I appreciate your taking the trouble to file a report about an ongoing problem that you noticed. Rivertorch (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to a new user (IP) in Jews
Hey Rivertorch. I'm writing about a response you gave to a new IP who made a good-faith, formal request for a change to the population statistics. IMO your response could have been more friendly than it was. By responding with a definitive "not done" and giving a very lawyerly response involving a request for reliable sources (even though the sources are already available in the Wikipedia pages cited by the IP), you're essentially telling the IP "go away, we're not interested in your contributions" -- just as this IP appears to have done. New users aren't going to have a very clear understanding of what sources are reliable and why not, which means that even when your reasoning is sterling, you need to explain why a cited source isn't sufficient, in a way that someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies will understand. In this case, your response "Wikipedia isn't a reliable source" won't make any sense at all to them, and in fact it doesn't make sense to me either, as an experienced editor -- all of these pages have their own sources provided for their figures, and those sources are prima facie reliable, meaning there's no legitimate reason to reject them up front. IMO much better would be to not use the "not done" template unless you have a good reason for doing so, rather than simply an "I'm not comfortable with this change" feeling. If you're not comfortable, just say so, and say why -- that way you are making an effort to keep the IP in the conversation, and allow them to think more about the issues involved and give a response.

I put some additional comments on the page in question, also.

Benwing (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: this refers to this section and specifically this month-old diff. There are a variety of "not done" templates. Rather than using the basic (i.e., "definitive") template, I used the reliable-source one; it links to the guideline, which provides a much more thorough and cogent overview of what constitutes a reliable source than any explanation I might have concocted on the spot. (One expects even brand new contributors to be able to follow a link to get additional information.) Let's see . . . I also made a perfectly civil parenthetical comment, identified a possible discrepancy in the population figures provided, noted (after taking the time to glance through the archives) that there were past discussions that might be relevant, and invited regular contributors to the article to comment. Now, it seems to me there's a vast gulf between "I didn't fulfill your edit request and here's why" and "go away, we're not interested in your contributions". If you cared to review my responses to other edit requests, you'd find that many of them have happy endings (as this one could, if the IP had bothered to follow up). I keep such pages on my watchlist for several days, just in case the requester needs further guidance or would like to discuss it further. So I'm sorry you thought my response was deficient, but if all of the above can be validly construed as "lawyerly", let alone unfriendly, I give up. Incidentally, you say the phrase "Wikipedia isn't a reliable source" doesn't make sense to you. WP:RS states:"Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose [my emphasis]."Maybe that isn't clear to you. Discussion at a recent RfC suggests that some editors are baffled or misled outright by wording that other editors think makes perfect sense. I wonder also if you find the Esp templates themselves bitey. If so, that may be something worth bringing up at template talk. Anyway, while I'm a bit taken aback by some of what you say, I appreciate constructive criticism and am glad you took the time to voice your concerns. I'm sure there's room for improvement in most of what I do, but I do think in this case my response at Talk:Jews was satisfactory. Rivertorch (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing ceremonies
Hi, Jc37. I was impressed by the thoroughness and care you took with your closing statement and was wondering if you'd consider signing on as co-closer when this moves into the RfC stage. You didn't participate in the last RfC, but I don't know if you were involved in the past. (There are so many pages to go through to be sure of that.) I realize this is sort of like asking you to stick your head in a hornets' nest, but it really will need at least one more closer. Rivertorch (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * If you really really really really really have no one else. (And left no rock unturned), I'll volunteer to help out closing.
 * And no, I don't currently have an opinion concerning PC. My intention was to leave that to others to figure out, since so many people do seem to have strong opinions on it : ) - jc37 21:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cupcake!

 * Well, your link was better. I don't know why, but New Zealand cracks me up on that one. So you get half of my cupcake. Rivertorch (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool =]. I particularly love Australia there...Beer...Kangaroos...Incest...lol! You have a good day River! Thanks for the cake ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The false repechage of Inter in 1922
FROM: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_Club_Internazionale_Milano

A seguito della scissione tra FIGC e CCI,[14] nella stagione 1921-1922 l'Inter si piazzò ultima nel proprio girone della CCI e doveva, per rimanere nella massima serie, disputare uno spareggio salvezza contro una squadra di Seconda Divisione.[15] Tuttavia, prima che lo spareggio si disputasse, due mesi dopo la fine del torneo, avvenne la riunificazione del campionato, avvenuta sulla base del Compromesso Colombo che, derogando alle regole prestabilite, stabiliva degli spareggi incrociati tra squadre FIGC e squadre CCI.[16][17] L'Inter riuscì a salvarsi battendo prima la cadetta S.C. Italia di Milano come stabilito dall'iniziale regolamento CCI (vinta dall'Inter a tavolino per 2-0 in quanto gli avversari non poterono schierare 11 giocatori, per motivi legati alla leva militare obbligatoria) e poi come stabilito dal Compromesso Colombo con la squadra FIGC Libertas Firenze. I nerazzurri si imposero per tre reti a zero in casa e pareggiarono per 1-1 in trasferta, rimanendo di conseguenza nella massima categoria.

TRANSLATION: Following the split between the FIGC and CCI, [14] in the season 1921-1922 Inter finished last in his CCI group and to remain in the premier league, Inter had to play a save playoff against a team of Second Division. [15 ] However, before the play-off disputasse, two months after the end of the tournament, took the reunification of the championship, which took place on the basis of the Compromesso Colombo, waiving the pre-established rules, established playoffs between FIGC and CCI teams. [16 ] [17] Inter managed to save themselves by beating the first cadet SC Italia as determined by the initial CCI Regulation (won 2-0 by Inter in the table for as opponents were unable to deploy 11 players, for reasons related to compulsory military service) and then as established by the Compromise Colombo with the team FIGC Libertas Florence. The Nerazzurri won with three goals to zero at home and drawn 1-1 away, remaining in the top category.

Italian source: http://blog.guerinsportivo.it/blog/2011/02/15/lo-stile-di-rosetta/

"Mentre il torneo FIGC si svolge senza emozionare nemmeno gli organizzatori, quello della concorrente CCI si afferma con il nome di Prima Divisione (grande innovazione, rispetto a Prima Categoria…) e schiera tutti i club più forti d’Italia. Va detto che questa specie di superlega, nata dal progetto Pozzo, ripropone molte delle logiche della Prima categoria degli anni passati. Le ventiquattro società settentrionali formano la Lega Nord e vengono divise in due gironi, cercando di mandare in gironi diversi le squadre della stessa città o comunque della stessa zona. Una suddivisione fatta con lo spirito di non creare una serie A e una serie B geografiche già sul nascere. Ogni girone si articola su partite di andata e ritorno ed è nettamente diviso dall’altro. Solo la prima si qualificherà infatti per la finale contro la prima dell’altro gruppo. Le ultime, invece, vanno agli spareggi con le migliori della Seconda Divisione. "

TRANSLATION: While the FIGC tournament is taking place without excite even the organizers, the competing CCI is affirmed as the Prima Divisione (great innovation, compared to Prima Categoria ...) and ranks all the strongest clubs in Italy. It must be said that this kind of superalloy, created by the Pozzo project had once again many of the logic of the first category of past years. The twenty-four companies make up the Northern League and are divided into two groups, trying to send the teams into different groups of the same city or at least the same area. A division made ​​in the spirit of not creating a geographical series A and series B already in the bud. Each round consists of lots of return and is sharply divided on the other. Only the first will qualify it for the first final against the other group. The last, however, go to the playoffs with the best of the Second Division. (The first play-off against SC Italia) So, Inter never was relegated in 1922, because the initial CCI Regulation contemplated a salvation play-off for Inter, not the relegation. The Compromise Colombo add a second play-off against Libertas Firenze. In any case (with or without the Compromise) Inter would have played a play-off. In the CCI championship the last place wasnt't meant to be a relegation place but a play-off place!

Ergo, Inter was never relegated in 1922. It's an italian football urban legend!

Can you correct the error, please? --L&#39;Eremita (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll respond at your talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jews

 * (Thread began here)

Thank you for your suggestion. I fully agree with you. My opinion is that Genetic studies and their results should be placed in right section. The article about the origin of Jews was written many years ago and remained unchanged until recently Historylover4 added some of genetic studies, with his conclusions. My latest edition is without any remarks objected by user Historylover4 in this way I tried maximally to be correct.Tritomex (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a moot point in this case now, since that user has been indefinitely blocked. But please consider in the future beginning a discussion and, if that goes nowhere, asking for help instead of repeatedly reverting. Reverts of vandalism (which you accused him or her of) are exempt from the edit war policy, but vandalism has a very narrow definition around here. Rivertorch (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I tried to open a discussion with him on his channel page, and I explained him all the possible consequences of his vandalism. I did not report him although I warned him many times that I will do it, due to the fact that he is likely an inexperienced editor. I am sorry that he finished like this, yet he can not say that he was not warned many times by different people.Tritomex (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks. I actually hadn't been aware of the difference in usage between British and American English for those words, but I knew that immigrated to isn't "wrong". Rivertorch (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Corporate Creations
I would appreciate your help. I am not experienced with editing Wikipedia. Corporate Creations is the third largest provider of registered agent and compliance services nationwide for Fortune 1000 companies. As evidence of Corporate Creations notability, please see the following:

http://www.s.co/press-release/startup-america-welcomes-new-sponsor-nyse-euronext-and-over-twenty-additional-partners

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/startup-america-welcomes-sponsor-nyse-180000226.html

http://www.ushcc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=485&parentID=472 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.21.205 (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.topconsumerreviews.com/company-incorporation/detailed-reviews.php#corporate_creations

http://www.bbb.org/south-east-florida/business-reviews/information-bureaus/corporate-creations-international-in-palm-beach-gardens-fl-9000679

http://www.hacr.org/mediacenter/pubID.332/pub_detail.asp

http://www.blackradionetwork.com/hispanic_chamber_announces_new_leaders

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/united-states-hispanic-chamber-of-commerce-announces-new-members-of-the-board-of-directors-128170768.html

http://latinastyle.com/magazine/22/61/columns-departaments/his-view/a-new-era-of-leadership-at-the-ushcc/

http://www.alpfa.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageId=39

50.138.21.205 (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Frank Rodriguez, Founder, Corporate Creations, My LinkedIn Profile is at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/CorporateCreations


 * First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Take a look at this page for links to some basic information about how Wikipedia works and how to edit it. When posting comments to a talk page like this one, please add your comments at the bottom of the page and sign your post either by typing four consecutive tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking the signature/timestamp icon above the editing window. I assume your query here is in reference to the article Registered agent. For many months now several editors (apparently including you) have been adding the names of various companies, including yours, to the article. The problem is that the companies being added don't have articles of their own. When a company (or a person, place, object, or whatever) has its own article, it can be assumed that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and thus is important enough to be mentioned (and linked to) in related articles. Any reader who sees such a link can click on it, view the linked article, and immediately discover why it is linked and, if in doubt, follow any external links to check out whether what the article says is accurate. Including something without that evidence of notability is a bad idea because verifiability is much more difficult. Think of it this way: we're trying to build a trustworthy encyclopedia here, and that means that our readers should be able to easily check whether what they're reading is accurate. Anyone reading Registered agent who comes across a bunch of blue-linked company names and one unlinked company name is going to be entitled to wonder why the unlinked name is there. (Who added it? Why are they listed? Do I really have to open a new tab and Google it? Aarrrghh!) Personally, I'd be inclined to assume that the unlinked one isn't notable and was added by someone affiliated with the company who was looking to bolster his firm's image. The ideal solution here would be for your company to have its own article. If it meets our notability guidelines, you could ask that such an article be written. The sources you've listed above might provide some of the groundwork for making that happen. Please be aware that Wikipedia's definition of notability may be narrower than you expect, so there are no guarantees. It also would be helpful if you reviewed the guideline on conflicts of interest. In the event that your company doesn't get its own article right away, please be patient; it will happen eventually. Not having a Wikipedia article doesn't reflect negatively on Corporate Creations per se, but repeatedly mentioning it in other articles before it does may well. Bottom line: Wikipedia is a top-ranked site in many topic areas, but unlike Facebook, Twitter, et al it shouldn't be viewed as a "must have listing". As an encyclopedia, it strives to reflect reality, not influence reality. If I can clarify any of the above or answer specific questions, I'll be happy to. If I'm not around (which is most of the time) or if you'd like a second opinion, you can post questions at the Help Desk. Thanks for taking the time to contact me. Rivertorch (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Are you willing to write an article about Corporate Creations? 50.138.21.205 (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Frank Rodriguez


 * I had the feeling you might ask that. The time I'm able to spend on Wikipedia is limited these days and devoted largely to maintaining and improving existing content. When I do involve myself in content creation, I prefer to concentrate on subjects with which I have some familiarity and in which I'm especially interested. If you've reviewed Notability and believe your company meets the guideline, your best bet is to make a request at Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies. (Provide links to demonstrate notability.) If it is approved, I'd be glad to help with sourcing, copyediting, and so on, but I won't write it myself. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

'''Older talk archive | Newer talk archive | Current talk page