User talk:Rivertorch/Archive11

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

WP:PC2012/RfC_1
FWIW, I think the discussions in this section may address some of the things you mentioned on my talk page. Or not :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It addresses one of the things, anyway. I've been watching that page closely, but thanks for the link. Sometimes I feel as if I'm playing chess in the dark. Rivertorch (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. It doesn't feel like a game of strategy to me, though it does sometimes feel like Greco-Roman wrestling :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly not a game, but trying to get from point a (more like point m) to point z without fatal misstep does require a careful strategy. I'm finding it difficult. Each question along the way seems to require one to think at least three steps ahead; each decision has multiple implications for the following question and the one after that, and the one after that. And for various reasons, a couple of them obvious and others unknown to me and baffling, some of us seem to be speaking oh so carefully, with hints and implications, instead of just saying plainly what we think and why. The effect of it all is vey cloak and dagger, even if no one really intends it that way. One of the best suggestions you made was early on, when you proposed that like-minded editors (e.g., those historically opposed to PC) get together and try to hammer out something they'd find acceptable, then bring that to the table. I think that might have made a difference, but I couldn't figure out how to engineer it without opening myself up to accusations of canvassing. For similar reasons, I've been reluctant to begin conversations with editors away from the PC2012 pages even when I think a one-on-one discussion might be beneficial to finding common ground and moving the process along. And when I do bother to try that approach, I'm met either with an oblique response or no response at all. Chess analogies aside, the whole endeavor seems very much like feeling one's way through unfamiliar territory on a moonless night with nothing but a glow stick and an intermittent flashlight. If I make the wrong move, will I foil someone's carefully laid (and entirely benevolent) plan? lose my own credibility? screw everything up and piss everyone off? Maybe I would do better just to abandon the whole thing and go find a quiet corner and play wikignome. Problem is, I know damn well that PC is going to eventually find me wherever I go, and if it's anything like the provisional policy I'm not going to like it when it does. Rivertorch (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:PC2012/RfC 1 can look scary, because the statements are short and don't have a lot of depth, which is typical for RfCs. But WT:PC2012 by itself wasn't getting the job done, we weren't getting the spectrum of opinions we needed to be able to put together RfCs that will attempt to address all the concerns the voters are likely to have. The only "strategy" I see here is basic social skills:
 * 1) Invite people in. If they don't come, try something else. (The RfC is the something else, here.)
 * 2) Take people seriously, but at least on Wikipedia, don't assume that they're being completely honest and that they've told you the whole story, because Wikipedia tends to suppress long and honest discussion of serious issues, and people learn to keep their thoughts to themselves. You have to work a little to reverse their expectations ... then they're generally helpful and forthcoming.
 * 3) Keep asking questions, and keep suggesting alternatives that might deal with everyone's concerns at the same time. Only resort to "compromises" or "votes" on those points where we've tried hard and failed to get a super-consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm sure that's good advice. Rivertorch (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "committing": great, glad to have you on board. I know this is frustrating ... small consolation, I guess, but everyone seems to be frustrated about one thing or another, certainly including me. Let's all be frustrated together :) - Dank (push to talk) 10:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "I still think we're asking the questions in the wrong order": Well, I think you learn a lot more asking people about what they think the problems are than what they think the solutions are, is that connected to what you'd like? The problem is, we already had a page where people could come talk about the problems ... and we needed more people. People like votes more ... and then, hopefully, some will hang around to discuss the problems. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm on my way out the door, so forgive lack of nuance: I don't disagree per se, but I can't help thinking that even more fundamental than identifying the problems should be identifying the purpose. If we can do that, I do believe that some of the other things will fall into place a lot more easily. Rivertorch (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To expand a bit, I mean that there's a new tool that's about to be implemented (I'm tempted to say "inflicted" but will restrain myself), and what is it for? That's really the basic question, as far as I can tell, and it's really two related questions: (1) what should it be used for? and (2) what may it be used for? The first is almost purely a philosophical question and quite abstract, since it involves what we want; the second is a bit more pragmatic in that it involves determining policy-based limits for how much deviation we'll allow from what we want. I think that if we can reach even the most tenuous consensus on this sort of thing, then answers to the other important questions (e.g., the one about PC/2) may become clearer—and, more immediately, we may gain insight into how to pose those other questions in a way that leads to further consensus. On the other hand, if we reserve the most basic questions for later, I don't think we'll get to them in time because we'll remain mired in procedural wrangling over everything but the kitchen sink. Rivertorch (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is it vandalism when I explain the obvious - that an article about a famous man should include his picture - but you find it perfectly fine to revert with no explanation?
Why do you engage in censorship while referrimg to my simple, logical and modest edit as vandalism? The issue has already been determined in theory- depictions of Muhammad are not to be censored because they are pictures of Muhammad. Yet what I found in the space which would normally show an image of the person written about is a stylized depiction of the word for Muhammad itself, in Arabic. Refer me to a page about any famous Englishman or American or Australian which, in place of that persons image, there appears that person's name in English - but written in flourished italics. That would be ludicrous and it is equally ludicrous for Muhammad's name to appear in that fashion. Kindly spare me the duty of reverting your reversion - or state your reasoning for reverting my edit and calling it vandalism. Your failure to provide any explanation does not seem in good faith to me. QuintBy (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Good morning to you too. Shall we employ a little fact-checking?


 * I didn't remove your preferred image from the infobox; someone else did.
 * That someone else made it so there was no image in the infobox.
 * Both of you were in the wrong because you ignored the great big colorful message, linking to two explanatory pages, staring you in the face when you edited the page, thereby violating consensus.
 * I restored the image for which consensus was reached after a community-wide discussion that lasted for two months.
 * In my edit summary, I explained exactly what I was doing and why I was doing it.
 * At no time did I refer to your edit as vandalism.


 * I realize you're new around here (in terms of edit count, anyway), and rest assured I won't hold your jumping to conclusions against you. A word of advice, though: even when another editor actually does any of the things you falsely alleged I did, it's generally advisable for you to take a less combative approach. Almost all of us are here with a common goal: to help build or maintain an encyclopedia. There are bound to be misunderstandings, as well as serious disagreements, and in many cases they can be resolved by asking, rather than accusing. Rivertorch (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Good morning yourself. I realize that by the standard you apply to me, you are old around here. Thus I find it disappointing that tutelage you have offered me as a 'new' editor is not sufficiently explanatory of your own editing/reversion of Muhammad. What the big colorful message staring me in face told me was that the quasi-image of Muhammad that was in place when I arrived had not been discussed and thus warranted reversion. It was your reversion of my edit which was inconsistent with the message which stared you in the face as well. What your reversion did was return to view the very image on the page which had warranted removal in the first place, for violation of the 'colorful' rule requiring discussion of all images used. More to the point, in returning that image to view you did not yourself undertake to provide the requisite discussion that was missing when I arrived and is still missing as I write this. The fact of the matter is that when you arrived, my edit had been reverted/edited already. Following the letter of the colorful rule, neither the image of Muhammad represented in Arabic nor my own edit to include a visual depiction of Muhammad's visage were discussed in advance of being placed. So why would you follow the discussion rule as it pertained to the image I added, but not follow that same rule with regard to the image which you reverted back to, which also was not vetted through discussion on the colorful page? I am confused by your interpretation of what was staring us both in the face, and also puzzled that when you returned the image which I edited out because there was zero discussion regarding it, that you did not rectify that omission by inserting your own discussion in support of inclusion of the stylistic depiction of Muhammad. Belated is better than omitted. Please discuss (on the in-your-face page) why you think that an image which deliberately avoids depicting Muhammad's visage is consistent with the consensus that a depiction of Muhammad's visage is not to be censored. QuintBy (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * QuintBy, whether either of us is new or old is really unimportant. I do make allowances for newbies that I generally wouldn't make for veteran Wikipedians; that's all I meant. You falsely accused me of labeling your edit as vandalism when I did no such thing. Worse, you implied that I was acting in bad faith. Allegations of that sort are never appreciated, but if they're made out of ignorance one must excuse them. As I did in your case. Regarding the substantive question of the image, it was all discussed ad nauseam during the RfC (linked above and now linked again for your convenience). If you want to know my opinion, go read the RfC and see how I !voted on the various questions. But my opinion, like your opinion, is really very much beside the point. The point is that consensus was reached, it may eventually change but not anytime soon, and everyone needs to accept it. Consensus is arguably the basis of everything we do on Wikipedia. My restoration of the consensus version of the article was grounded in policy. Such edits, made to enforce consensus, do not require any accompanying discussion; the discussion has already been had. Rivertorch (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * lol man QuintBy, don't reason with him, he never gives a reasoning. maybe that's because he hadn't got any reason. whatever may be the reason, but if you are discussing with him on basis of reasoning, then i wish you good luck!

& hey rivertouch, did you remember me from mango page!

Whoops on the Fallopion tube to the uterus.
I just realized that I made that careless edit. I'm glad you caught it. Thank you. Oh sheesh. Red faced here. LOL That was dumb on my part and I will be much more careful in the future. Marmenta (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it. I had already forgotten. Rivertorch (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing archived edit request
You did the right thing. It was my fault when I archived the page without checking for unanswered edit requests and keeping them on the talk page. &mdash; Cup co  18:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I started to move it back to the talk page but figured that was pointless since protection apparently had expired. I know there's a lot of activity on that talk page, but I strongly suspect that 24 hours between MiszaBot visits is too short an interval. I'm not watching the article and won't make the change, but I'd suggest 72 hours at a minimum, increased to weekly (or longer) as soon things settle down. In the meantime, manual archiving can also take place if things get out of hand. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Lobster
An article that you have been involved in editing, Lobster, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. PeterWesco (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren
If you can't be bothered to even read an edit request, it would be better if you didn't just casually flip it off. It took me some time and effort to find the correct parameter, and I expected it to be fixed. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I read it twice but apparently missed something. Let me see if I can find it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Added: I've responded at Talk:Elizabeth Warren and have left your second edit request open. It would help if you'd be very specific about what you want changed. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time, as you seem determined to test AGF to the limit. The Template is CONGLINKS. The parameter is WASHPO. The values was, and is, Elizabeth_Warren. it needed to be CHANGED to gIQAZHDx9O . The value is what needed to be changed, in the Elizabeth Warren article, NOT adding an additional link. A separate link was used as a TEMPORARY change until the Template was fixed because ALL the urls changed, thanks to the ever-incompetent Washington Post. The Template CONGLINKS was fixed, and I have already corrected quite a few instances of the Template. Today, someone changed the template CONGLINKS so that NONE of those are displayed. That needs to be reverted. This isn't rocket science, and everything was discussed in the Talk pages. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I said absolutely nothing to imply I wasn't assuming good faith in you or anyone else. But you know what? Registering for an account isn't rocket science either, and since you're conversant with Wikispeak acronyms but unable to follow the directions in the edit request box or communicate with someone trying to help you without resorting to SHOUTING and baseless criticism, I suggest you register, make a few edits, and earn the privilege of fixing it yourself. In case you prefer to remain unregistered and locked out of semi-protected articles, I have left your edit request open. Someone else, likely much brighter than I, will doubtless find it in due course and make the change. I'm generally one of the more patient editors around here, but I'm afraid I'm not in the mood to be infinitely patient with you today. Rivertorch (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rivertorch
My name is Veysel Peru, you have commented to a writing of mine in the Talk_Quran section. I kindly want you to read my personal site http://www.VeyselicNumbers.com and return your comments on it.

Thank you very much.

Veyselperu (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I can offer no meaningful opinion on the content of your site, but I wish you all the best. (Please note that Wikipedia does not accept original research to support its content.) Rivertorch (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever your contribution is, thank you very much.

Veysel Peru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veyselperu (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

bioreactors
sewage treatment ==

(sorry if this is in the wrong place, I haven't used it before) Although, I may have made a few grammatical errors in editing 'sewage treatment', shouldn't the subject matter of the section be confined to sewage treatment... or better wastewater treatment (since 'sewage' is somewhat deprecated in the field). I was trying to explain generalities of wwt as succinctly as possible. Perhaps I should have used a laptop instead of an ipad...

Tissue culture is not done at treatment plants. Although there are fixed film processes, the true wwt reactors are either anaerobic digesters or pure oxygen reactors: since they are closed to the atmosphere(is that not the implication of a bioreactor). I don't know whether aerators, trickling filters, or rotating biological contactors are truly bioreactors, since they are open to the atmosphere, but the are not tissue culture.

I operate pure oxygen reactors with a flow through of about 350MGD (think how many plants in the USA have that flow), the atmosphere is excluded to decrease nitrogen input. Although I have heard of mobile fixed film wwt plant in NZ that uses some kind of media called Kaldanes, generally wwt is activated sludge w/o media in reactors or aerators--probably to avoid problems with pump impellers and media/zooglia separation.

Should I have added references? Maybe, but in wwt, what I wrote is general knowledge just as the unreferenced tissue culture stuff is probably general knowledge. But, can we separate, into separate sections: WWT from academic Tissue Culture, Industrial Bioreactors, and especially Proprietary Bioreaction Processes?

Perhaps you could re-edit what I wrote to something more popularly intelligible--as you have seen my writing isn't the best. The Ken Kerri books from CSU Sacramento are the standard set of California texts for operator certification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.21.108 (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think maybe you intended this message for someone else. We don't appear to have edited any of the same articles, unless you were editing under a different IP, and I haven't ever edited any article on wastewater treatment that I can recall. The only edit from your current IP to an article—this one—looks fine to me, although it's technical enough in nature that I can't be sure. Rivertorch (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

==Modification to May PC be applied to pages to protect against violations of the policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)?==

Hello. Because the "Yes" section was split between one group in favor of applying protection to all articles and one group in favor of applying protection to articles only when there has been a problem, I have split the section to reflect this difference. Please go back to that page and make sure that your vote is still in the section that most closely reflects your views.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that split is a good idea. The wording of the BLP question is exactly the same as the wording of the other questions. As I read it, "to protect against violations of the policy" does not connote preemptive action in the absence of a documented problem, although respondents are free to specify a preference for such action. Two have clearly done so; I don't think that elektrikSHOOS's response does so categorically, although it can be read that way. I'm inclined to revert you but would prefer to discuss it first. If you completely disagree with what I'm saying, I suggest we take it to the RfC talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd ask that you take it to the talk page without reverting, as discussion has started on one of the two items of the split, and votes have already changed (mine at least) because of the split.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All right. If it's all right with you, I'll copy the above to the talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Rivertorch (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ged UK  12:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC live
I hope you don't mind I took the talk-page RfC live with most of your proposed questions, along with a general area for people to raise any concerns they have with the proposed policy text that now lives on WP:PC. It's at WT:PC. Feel free to notify anyone else that you think might not be watching the page already. It's on CENT as well. Gigs (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gigs, I do mind. You consistently and adamantly opposed having another RfC, and now, while I'm actively working on revising questions per various discussions (including the one I had with you a week ago), you unilaterally, prematurely, and without so much as a word on the page where that has been discussed decide to concoct an RfC, place it on the wrong page, and advertise it centrally? At every step along the way, there has been consensus for these RfCs. This is counterproductive, and I sincerely hope you will self-revert. Rivertorch (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Added: It's still early enough to cancel it; only one editor has commented. If you don't want to cancel, I guess we're going to have two concurrent RfCs with partially overlapping questions starting in about six days. Rivertorch (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Crap, I did not expect this reaction. From our last exchange, it seemed that your main opposition was to having the discussion in more than one location, not to having the RfC in an informal format on the talk page.  It also seemed like discussion and revision had come to a standstill.


 * The new RfC has already drawn feedback, I'd be very reluctant to withdraw it now. I can only apologize profusely. I really did not mean to "fait accompli" this.  It had seemed to me that discussion had died down and I wanted to "kick the horse" a little and get things moving again.  We are on a deadline here, and I think we both agree that the old provisional policy is no where close to consensus, and is not a valid option for December 1.  I did not see any activity in revision of the questions, if I missed it, I'm sorry for that as well.


 * Can you integrate any further questions you want considered into the currently running RfC that's on the talk page? I'd really like to salvage it if possible.   Can we talk about it and work this out without frustrating the community further by withdrawing this discussion or having two concurrent ones?   Again, I'm very sorry.  I did not expect you to object to what I did this strongly, or I would not have done it.  Gigs (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't believe in substantively modifying an RfC that's already underway, so if you feel it's too far along to withdraw, it will just have to run. Personally, I'd remove the RfC tag and the central notice, mark it as premature and collapse it, but I leave that up to your judgment. It's not the end of the world—just imho a distraction and a probable annoyance to people who I think we've both noted are rather tired of the whole subject of pending changes. I'm sure you had the best intentions, but I can't imagine making a unilateral decision to start an RfC on this topic; since the "Big RfC" closed a few months ago, everything that's happened has been collaborative—until now. Oh well. Don't sweat it. Based on what's on the draft page and associated talk page (which btw are linked in several places and are where folks are going to expect to find the next RfC), I've been working on a draft for the past two weeks that I had hoped to post later this week with an eye to opening RfC 3 on Saturday or Sunday (in time for a notice in the next Signpost). I'm going to still shoot for that—I think the reviewer questions at the very least cannot be delayed—and will do my best to complement "your" RfC and not conflict with it. At the moment, I'm a little preoccupied with a pending something else that could leave me Internet-less until late in the week, so things are a little uncertain for me right now. Rivertorch (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in the hurricane as well. Gigs (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've collapsed the RfC temporarily, and commented out the WP:CENT advertising. Feel free to add more questions to it and reopen it when you are ready. Gigs (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good, thanks. Anything I do will be post-storm. I already lost power once, just as I was about to reply here, and it's almost inconceivable it will stay on. I freely confess I enjoy storms on a certain level, but I'm just technologically primitive enough to be quite undone by them. My outage is come upon me! cried the Wikipedian of Shalott. Thanks for being responsive to my concerns. Stay safe. Rivertorch (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My power is still out, coming up on 24 hours now.  I'm somewhat of a prepper though, so I'm well prepared.    Power is on here at work.  Gigs (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lucky you. I'm well prepped for survival, not so much for communications sans power (and I've never felt a burning need to remedy that). Rivertorch (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes me think of editing Wikipedia over FSK ham radio. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. I have no interest in editing Wikipedia from phone or tablet, nor do I think anything I'm doing here is important enough to burn fossil fuels and money to go where there's power and Internet. If that makes me a primitive technophobe and a fair weather Wikipedian, so be it. Rivertorch (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * What a nice surprise to log in and find! You know, I think it may have been the first time I explicitly cited that policy for an action I took, and I was a little skeptical, so I'm very grateful for your vote of confidence. Thank you so much. Rivertorch (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A matter of identity
RiverTorch, I am Jay Leno. Please quit reversing my changes... James.Douglas.Muir (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're Jay Leno, you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing your own article, let alone violating the policy on original research. Please edit another article instead (preferably not David Letterman's), and don't waste my time. Rivertorch (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Incidentally, unless you really are Mr. Leno (which you should feel free to prove to the OTRS team), your user name is disruptive and needs to be changed. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Rivertorch, let's be clear here. We're in a bit of a pickle with time and politics and speech not playing out freely, as they should be, at the moment, and getting people's visibility on this subject matter is of the utmost concern. So what you're saying is you feel justified in limiting my freedom of speech, and not only that, you feel justified in limiting my freedom of speech and disallow me talking about myself?

So how does this sound, Since you've remained anonymous to me, send me your name and full contact information to my email address, at James.Douglas.Muir@gmail.com, or you can contact me at (818) 840-3223, or better yet, contact me on my web site, which you can do any google search and ask if I support these changes. Or better yet, how about you stop by my studios, and we can chat personally about this. I'd love to discuss how Wikipedia editors suddenly adopted fascism and are now disallowing us from editing information about ourselves....

I'm interested in knowing who has the audacity to feel I need to prove myself to them.. That takes balls, that's for sure, but I give you the opportunity to justify your actions.. Who knows, I may make it a segment on my show, Wikipedia could clearly use a humility check if this is who we have representing our information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Douglas.Muir (talk • contribs) 05:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I know you're not Jay Leno. I'm not particularly a fan of his, but I'm confident that he's smart, sensible, and more than wise enough not to do what you're doing now. If your agenda here is to promote the write-in candidate you're hawking in your edits to the Leno page, I'm sorry to inform you that Wikipedia is the wrong venue; you're wasting your own time as well as mine. Please don't bother me again. Rivertorch (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rivertorch, just to let you know, I have brought this User up in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as they have made a legal threat on my Talk Page. I've included a link to your Talk Page so that the evaluating Administrator can better understand the situation. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We both filed an ANI report. You beat me by mere seconds. Rivertorch (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad he's blocked. Some people just don't have lives. Anyway, I'm for Team Coco, lol. Cheers, Mate. King of Nothing (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Two barnstars in as many days—now that's a first for me. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You should run for Adminship
I've reviewed a lot of the successful and unsuccessful Requests for Adminship and I've reviewed a lot of your Contributions and I think you would be a lock to become an Administrator. If you would like someone to nominate you, I would be happy to do so (or if you'd like to nominate yourself I'd be happy to participate in the RfA). Let me know. As Always, With Thanks King of Nothing (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the kind words, but I suspect I'd be far from a "lock". If it were 2004 or 2005, when I first began editing (as an IP) and adminship was no big deal, I might go for it. Nowadays, I see no compelling reason to run the gauntlet that is RfA just to add a few tools, most of which I'd never use but a couple of which might further distract me from the reason I'm here but never seem to get around to anymore: building good articles. Rivertorch (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in participating in any way in reviewer promotions or demotions, that would be a great reason to run ... if you're interested in running, I'll nominate you. Btw, I certainly get your anxiety that admins will promote or demote "out of process" and that that could be a big problem ... I'm worried about that too, mainly because I think admins have gotten the message from the last couple of years that reviewership is supposed to be "no big deal", so they'll be thinking ... how hard can it be to figure out? I'm hoping that it does get hard to figure out, because that will be one sign that reviewers are working hard and they care about standards ... and if it does get complicated, then I think it's important to let admins know that. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Getting involved with promotions had never occurred to me. I guess I should give that some thought. In the short term, I'd really like to try and get back to doing some article work and see how that goes. Thank you, though. I'm flattered, and actually a little surprised, by your confidence in me. Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's really why I offered ... I know I can come across as distant on Wikipedia (outside of my home base, Milhist), and "distant" can come across as vaguely disapproving ... and I don't disapprove at all, I think you're doing a great job and I'm glad you're doing it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks . . . that means a lot. Fwiw, I really don't see you as distant—just preoccupied with article work, which is exactly as it should be. For the most part, it has been a genuine pleasure to work with you on PC prep, and any exceptions to that are down to my own frustrations with the process, not anything you did or didn't do. Rivertorch (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure too. I'm hoping it pays off. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fingers Crossed.jpg
 * Rivertorch (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Make it three
BTW- GedUK added new comments to the not-yet-open RfC 3, despite the warnings at the top. Are we ready to just call it open? I think most of the recent participants in the RfC design process have weighed in at this point. Gigs (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good grief, I detect a trend: wasn't it GedUK who commented in RfC 2 after it was closed? It probably doesn't matter as long as there are no substantive changes before it goes live, but lol! Let me do a last copyedit and see if anything important jumps out at me. If there's nothing, I'll say so at the talk page and I think you should do the honors. Thanks for pretty trinket #3—I am astonished and, truth be told, a little humbled. Rivertorch (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A cyoot kitteh!
Was going to give you the barnstar of diplomacy, but i see someone beat me to it...So have a kitty for the great work on Talk:Homophobia. Thanks and have an amazing day!

ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 


 * Oh, great—now I have to buy kitty litter. (Thank you. We'll see if it has one iota of effect.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You could always return it to the pet shop. I left the receipt in the box and it should still be there (unless the kitteh ated it) =P
 * Have a nice evening! ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So it came from the pet shop, did it? I would never return it. Cyoot kittehs ≠ merchandise! Rivertorch (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have bought it from the back of a local place =P
 * Enjoy, they're delicious with prawn crackers and soy sauce apparently ツ Je no va  20  (email) 23:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Redefining homophobia
Homophobia isn't a phobia, homophobes aren't scared... "they're just assholes" ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Rivertorch (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Insomesia (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48
Thanks for your input. I'm concerned at the rejection of processes that the community as a whole has endorsed over the years. That's not going to end well, and any suggestions for smoother and fairer running of the thing gratefully accepted. Here, at least. --Pete (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the community as a whole has never endorsed anything at all. If WP's body of contributors had been half as numerous and a quarter as diverse a few years ago as they are now, there likely enough wouldn't have been consensus for even the most basic policies that we take for granted. Look, I don't know you. I see your account dates from the time I was still fixing the occasional typo as an IP, but I don't recall running across your username before. HiLo48 and I apparently have a few watchlisted pages in common, so I've seen him around. While he may sometimes shoot from the hip, my impression is that the targets are usually legitimate enough. Shrug. I took a quick look at the RfC/U in question and found its focus on "profanity" more than a little silly. If the word "bullshit" offends you, you must live each day in a state of perpetual offense. Tell you what, though: I rather think the word's ubiquity, both on WP and in RL, can be attributed less to a reduction in civility than an increase in . . . well, in bullshit. Anyway, why don't the two of you trout each other, agree to disagree, and go find some other articles to edit? That might be the best way for this to end. Beyond that, I really don't have any suggestions. In my experience, dispute resolution is almost always messy and unpleasant, and it frequently doesn't end in a way that's beneficial to the individual editors or the project. Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Points taken. Sometimes I'm amazed that Wikipedia functions at all. Still, we manage to get some things done. As a night cabbie, foul language doesn't bother me, so I'm not personally offended. It's more the inappropriateness, like going into a library and yelling obscenities at the readers so that they will listen to what you have to say about the CIA and KFC and AFL. Besides, HiLo's vowed to stop swearing, and he's done that very well. He's a good editor in a little difficulty and needing a little help, that's all. Thanks for your interest and advice. Appreciated. --Pete (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)?

A cup of tea for you!

 * Not to be ungrateful or anything, but that looks more like coffee. How long did you leave the bag in? Rivertorch (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. Shhhh...I'm not really here. I'm in a very good mood right now, and nothing—not even a reminder of ANI—can bring me down.


 * Sorry, i keep forgetting to put the milk in. Enjoy your time off. Hey, you could even do that thing i saw once...what do they call it?...Ah, go outside! =D
 * That's always fun for a bit ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did that yesterday, and it was great! Would you believe there's a whole world out there with trees and buildings and live music and crème brûlée and people who don't edit Wikipedia and other animals who don't edit Wikipedia . . . so many things you can read about by following WikiLinks are verifiable simply by walking out the door. On the one hand, I want to spread the word, tell the world, shout it from the rooftops, "Turn off the friggin computer and go outside!", but what if all the best editors heed the call and only the vandals and spammers and global-warming deniers are left to run the show? Btw, I'm very distractible. Did you know it takes seven colons to indent a reply next to a bottle of milk? Not three, four, five or six, but seven. I wonder, do the developers know? Rivertorch (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, i have corrected that. Nice to see the ANI hasn't affected your (as always) calm demeanor. I could be cruel and point out someone spelt "distract i ble" instead of "distract a ble" but i won't =P
 * See you around ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You could be cruel and point that out, yes, but first you should check whose spelling is correct. Speaking of cruel, on this side of the Pond, "spelt" is a grain much more often than it's a past tense.  Rivertorch (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, you've taken it too far now! See you at RFC Rivertorch!
 * ...You're right though, Merriam says both are correct. So i learned something at least. Did you know you can use bumfuzzle as a substitute for surprised or shocked?
 * Thanks and have a nice day/evening ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bumfuzzle"? Good thing Wikipedia is Not Censored. Sounds obscene to me. Rivertorch (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in the dictionary though and so i must use it =]
 * I hope you've seen this also. Things are getting mental at ANI. Thanks and have a nice weekend! ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsolicited advice: keep your distance. Nothing good will come of any further comments there just now—not even if they're refutations of the most mindless absurdities. It's a failure of Wikipedia when mob rule runs the day at any noticeboard, and it happens at ANI all too frequently. That the subject has been allowed to redefine the complaint against him as a content dispute and recast himself as the victim, and the peanut gallery allowed to hurl abuse on the complainants, is all very unfortunate but also very predictable. I had thought that admin Kim was going to try to refocus things a bit, but perhaps he got sidetracked. At this point, unless we see some bold, rouge-type action there soon, it will almost certainly get tossed in Arbcom's lap. Actually, that probably will happen in the end regardless. Rivertorch (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't invited to this tea party, but if I may be so bold as to interject, Rivertorch is exactly right. The ANI process has likely failed. I'm very dismayed as some of the comments that have been made, and the attempts to derail the process, even by admins, but I'm not entirely surprised. The best thing to do at this point is to leave it be and hope that there is an admin with some integrity who will close the ANI soon, by objectively determining consensus. - MrX 19:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So basically an editor can do anything they like and when called up on it nothing will happen if they successfully fillibuster the entire thing by filling the page with nonsense from themselves and people who obviously didn't read the complaint or evidence doing the same thing? That's ridiculous. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy but i didn't realise it had such obvious anti-gay feeling that allow this sort of thing, as well as the painting of the entire LGBT wikiproject as a bunch of "activists" and "guardians" of articles with no repurcussions.
 * If this were one of my early discussions on here i would have picked a different hobby and never touched Wikipedia. It's no wonder editor retention is declining.
 * Have all the tea you like you two, have a nice weekend too ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Replying to you both, in no particular order. Jenova20, you're a good editor and I'm very glad you picked this hobby. The situation is awful, but it's not quite unprecedented in terms of either administrative dysfunction or hostility to LGBT editors. I honestly don't remember a worse situation, but there have been a few others that were almost as bad. Anyway, I don't blame you at all for feeling angry and discouraged, but I'd like to encourage you not to become too disillusioned. Wikipedia is essentially a microcosm of the outside world (albeit with a disproportionate number of nerds and misfits, and a dearth of women), and it suffers from injustices parallel to those we see in society. In the real world, or at least in much of the developed Western portion of it, there are mighty changes afoot, ushering in the end of a painfully long era in which homphobia was the not only tolerated but expected. Unsurprisingly, there's a corresponding backlash as people who feel unable or unwilling to adjust to the changes rant and rave or in some cases use quieter approaches calculated to throw a spanner in the works. I could be wrong, but I think that explains some of the antagonism that rears its head from time to time on Wikipedia. MrX, you're most welcome to join the party. (Why does the phrase "tea party", even in lower case, give me a queasy feeling, I wonder?) Pull up a chair and make yourself comfortable. I have no wisdom to offer, just half-baked hypotheses like the one above, but the larder at Commons is full and I have credit there. Rivertorch (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that wasn't me angry, just bumfuzzled. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ''(Considers several witty rejoinders but, feeling oddly prim this morning, rejects them all in the name of Decency. Let all indecencies happen at noticeboards, never here!) Rivertorch (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Reminder to self: User:Rivertorch/CERFC. Done.

A trainstop present for you!

 * Thank you. That's very kind. Rivertorch (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I got the same one. Looks like an early christas present =] ツ Je no va  20  (email) 00:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering how short the winters have become at the North Pole as of late, can you blame Santa for getting a head start? (Funny about the train, though. Maybe the reindeer are on strike?) Rivertorch (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe he had to move christmas day to November because of the ice melting and the global warming? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to discuss openclassical with you!
Rivertorch, thanks for your feedback on the Beethoven page! I would like to ask what you think might be the best way forward for our project with regard to Wikipedia integration. www.openclassical.com is itself a very large project, and my vision for it has always been to be an educational (and inspirational) resource on the web. I always thought it would link naturally from Wikipedia. So I find myself looking now at how to begin persuading the community here that it is a valid resource, and which fills a gap in the Wikipedia platform (an organized catalog of classical music) that cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet.

A large problem I see online, with regards to classical music, is that it is quite difficult to explore the works of the composers in a simple way, especially if you're not a trained musician. Current efforts tend to be huge lists (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Ludwig_van_Beethoven) that are not sortable / filterable, or what I would call user-friendly. To say nothing of movements, instrumentation, dedications, premiere performances, etc - features currently being built into openclassical. My goal is for a visitor to be able to quickly discover a composer's greatest works, and also hear them.

The thing that really excites me about our YouTube integration is that the quality of recordings (professional and amateur) tend to be surprisingly good. So good in fact that a visitor gets a great impression of the music. I understand the concern about possibly copyrighted material on YouTube, but I did not think it would be an objection to adding openclassical as an external link from Wikipedia. What do you think would be a reasonable way to address this? I believe the vast majority of movies we get from the YouTube api are fine, however openclassical itself cannot tell in any case. Is this really a concern for Wikipedia?

The second issue you mention is the reliability of our information. Interesting question, something I had not thought might be considered. Our team are doctoral level professional musicians, so again I would really like to ask your opinion about how you (and others) might expect this to be addressed? Maybe something like an 'our team' page? On the other hand, I would imagine that since each work we list tends to have YouTube movies and links to scores via IMSLP would prove the existence of the work in general?

Thanks! D clef (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, D clef. The best place to conduct this discussion is probably the external links noticeboard, and I'd suggest opening a new thread there. Before you do that, please read the guideline on external links carefully; it may address some of your concerns, as well as giving you a general idea of the Wikipedia community's views on what sort of links are acceptable and why. To answer a couple of your specific questions, linking to possible copyright violations is definitely a concern for Wikipedia. (I think we go overboard on that concern sometimes, but then again I also think that copyright law has become utterly ludicrous in recent years, and we do need to stay on the good side of all laws—even ludicrous ones.) Yes, I definitely think an "our team" page would be a good thing. Whether such a page would be helpful in making your case for linking the site from Wikipedia articles, I'm not sure, but it couldn't hurt. One other thing. From your comments, I take it you're affiliated with openclassical.com. At the moment, Wikipedia has a rather incoherent approach to addressing conflicts of interest. We do have a guideline that you probably should read, but it's hard to predict exactly how it will be applied in a given case. I do appreciate your taking the time to discuss the matter. I think the web site in question is an interesting one, and whatever happens vis-à-vis Wikipedia, I wish you much success. Feel free to contact me again if you think I can be of any help. Rivertorch (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rivertorch, all this has given us a few things to think over, thanks again for your thoughts. Something like an 'our team' page is on our todo list now. Yes I am affiliated with openclassical.com, but as far as COI goes, I really don't think we're trying to assert a bias about which composer or music is better than others (quite the opposite actually); our mission is to collate the objective facts of classical music history and make them easy to discover. As the site continues to improve hopefully the WP community will become persuaded of our educational focus, and value as an external link to WP visitors.  I think a bit later on, when openclassical is more comprehensive, we'll begin a discussion on the external links noticeboard as you suggest. I'll keep you posted as the site grows in the meantime, thanks again!  D clef (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Regarding conflict of interest, the issue isn't favorite composers; while bias could be a concern if your site were to incorporate a discernable bias, it's really more about your interest in driving traffic to your site. It's inevitable you'd want to do that—any site owner who has sufficient bandwidth wants traffic, and Wikipedia links deliver it—so we need to be careful on this end to ensure that all linked sites fully meet the terms of our guidelines by complementing our articles in meaningful ways. You can imagine what would happen if we weren't strict about that. As it is, it's an ongoing struggle to keep insidious link additions at bay. I see, btw, that you've also been talking with GFHandel, and I think he has given you excellent advice. Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Muffins and crumpets
Hi! Sorry, not really yelling at you but it does come up at inopportune moments and can derail the discussion in a most spectacular way. With some caveats (traditional BrE usage, what I can easliy buy in a non-specialist supermarket etc) the muffin is basically a flattish bread product which although it does have a top and a bottom is pretty up-down symmetrical. Inside, it is just a type of bread, albeit delicious. The crumpet does not have up-down symmetry - the top and bottom are completely different. The bottom is a sealed flat surface and the top is covered in small holes, maybe about 2-3mm or so in diameter, which descend into the material. When you have toasted it, you butter the top surface and the butter melts into the holes. To turn it upside down at this point would be a catastrophe. The surfaces are waxier and a bit tougher than ordinary bread - to the touch there is something almost plasticky about them although that makes it sounds horrible, which they are not. Far from it. Please visit the UK and permit me to entertain you to tea - once you have experienced them there is no possibility of confusion. Oh, and if coming from the USA please bring a bag of AmE "English muffins" as (a) I like them and (b) it is a most useful comparison between them, BrE muffins, and crumpets, and all three are different! Hope this helps. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PS the last time I ate AmE English muffins I was in Manhattan, Kansas. They were delicious, as was Manhattan, Kansas. My friends/hosts were quite surprised when I denied that we had these at home. We did not discuss crumpets. :) DBaK (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That gives me a much clearer idea. Thank you. Of course, now that I am enlightened about muffins, I'm feeling sadly ignorant about The Great Crumpet Controversy. I searched in vain—no mention of the c-word. Then it occurred to me: maybe I've been concussed by a Barcelonan waiter! ("Don't mention crumpets. I mentioned them once but I think I got away with it".) As for Kansas, well, their baked goods may be nice but I wouldn't want to live there (speaking of head trauma). Rivertorch (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha! Thanks. And just to add completely to my confusion, when I went to Dorothy Gale the very first thing I (mis)read was "A widow knocked Dorothy on the head" ... which seemed rather unkind. But I assure you that my friends in Kansas are fine fine people, whether regarding their baked goods or not ... :) DBaK (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to try an confuse...

 * And you succeeded: I am now officially confused again. That looks very much like what we call a muffin on this side of the Pond. Wasn't there a Star Trek episode where the computer seized control of the Enterprise and they had to regain control by telling the computer mutually contradictory statements and overloading its circuits? (Funny how far they regressed since the early 21st century. Somehow it must be Microsoft's fault.) I feel for the ship's computer. Rivertorch (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And besides, that looks nothing like a scone. A scone looks rather like a biscuit. Oh, wait. . . . Rivertorch (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Found the quote I was looking for. From At Bertram's Hotel by Agatha Christie:"Lady Selina was continuing. 'Only place in London you can still get muffins. Real muffins. Do you know when I went to America last year they had something called muffins on the breakfast menu. Not real muffins at all. Kind of teacake with raisins in them. I mean, why call them muffins?'" Rivertorch (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no, i'm not falling for that! Scones are nothing like biscuits. What i am pretty sure of though...is that tarts are just miniature pies with no pastry on the top . ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one works internationally, I think. Finally, a pastry everyone can agree on! What's next, global disarmament? American ratification of the Kyoto Protocol? Somebody hush me up—I feel a kumbaya coming on. Rivertorch (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No American leader would ever weaken their economy like that and keep office, so don't bet on that last one. To Americans, the rest of the world are Communists and arabs to be invaded or crushed. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit of a generalization, but point taken. In terms of economic policy, the focus does seem to rest on the short term (i.e., the upcoming election cycle), but the long and the short will eventually converge as unchecked climate change wreaks havoc on the economy. Rivertorch (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, we have a point of disagreement =]
 * You believe in runaway man-made climate change?
 * I always love that image btw, especially Australia. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * New Zealand cracks me up. I don't know why it should, and somehow that makes it even better. As for your question, I'm not sure what you're asking. Is it a trick question? The global climate is warming, the trend is accelerating, the mechanism fueling it is largely anthropogenic, and the consensus on all of the above within the relevant scientific disciplines is overwhelming. Rivertorch (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No trick question, just overwhelming, but unproven as yet.
 * It's one of the few sciences where disbelievers are attacked for not believing at face value that humans are responsible, despite it still being an unproven assumption that people cause it.
 * Further there has been no warming for at least 10 years and the trend is actually cooler, rather than warmer.
 * And the last one that gets me is the ice age, which people keep using to win this argument...athough i don't remember how that one is used correctly...ツ Je no va  20  (email) 23:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Jenova, dear heart, you're erudite and wise about many things, and I have enormous respect for your edits here, and your muffins are delicious. . . but this time I'm afraid you've missed the mark by a mile. (To paraphrase a wise old man, what are they teaching the young people in school nowadays?) This is approaching the bounds of the sort of discussion I'd prefer to have on my talk page, but I can't in good conscience leave what you've said unanswered. The topic we've somehow veered into (from muffins, no less!) is more important than just about anything else I can think of—certainly more important than Wikipedia itself, although its controversies have played a prominent enough role here from time to time. Cooling trend? Not quite. 2010 was the warmest year since records have been kept, and 10 of the past 11 years have been above average. 2011 was the eleventh warmest year on record, the warmest La Niña year on record, and the 35th consecutive year of above-average temperatures (relative to the average for the entire 20th century). Thus far, 2012 is on track to surpassing 2011 in several measures. Even if there were a cooling trend, it's the longer-term context that matters; terrestrial climate is complex, and change comes in jagged trends, not even slopes. For a snapshot putting some of the most recent data into a larger historical context graphically, this one does the trick nicely. Unproven, you say, but science doesn't deal in proof. Anthropogenic global warming is "unproven" in the same way that evolution and Big Bang cosmology are "unproven": it doesn't lend itself to the sort of laboratory-based observational testing that produces results anyone can immediately see and understand, and yet it is empirically testable in enough meaningful ways that it forms a coherent body of evidence that underpins a theory. And scientific theories (which I'm sure you know are quite different from other sorts of theories) are as close as science ever gets to "proof". (Here's an unusually articulate essay on that point, in case you're interested.) So we have an accepted scientific theory, but we also have a calculated, sustained effort to manufacture uncertainty. As long as the seeds of uncertainty are allowed to take root, the standoff between science and ignorance/greed/shortsightedness continues. But it is unconscionable to let the standoff continue or adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Even if the prevailing theory of climate change turns out to be fundamentally wrong (which is very unlikely), the overwhelming likelihood that it is right obliges us to take all available measures to halt (and if possible reverse) the warming trend, as well as to do everything reasonably possible to mitigate the damage which, even under the best-case scenarios, will continue to manifest itself for centuries. Doing less, or continuing to drag our feet instead of acting, will not only create untold misery for future generations of humans and doom vast numbers of other species—all that is a near-inevitability—but actually has the potential to transform our planet into something quite unrecognizable and perhaps barely habitable. There will always be uncertainty about the exact details of the future, but that's no excuse for wholesale disbelief in an overwhelming body of evidence. As for the disbelievers, while I personally would rather seek to enlighten instead of attack anyone, I'm afraid we've reached the point where such attacks (counterattacks, really) are inevitable. "Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall / For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled", Bob Dylan sang almost half a century ago. He didn't know about global warming, which was the faintest blip on the climatological radar of the day, but his lyrics make sense in this modern context. Skepticism is one thing (all good scientists practice it) but the kind of widespread disbelief about global warming that abounds in much of the developed world is impeding any possibility of averting a worldwide, slow-motion catastrophe. And the disbelief, or much of it, arises from disinformation. The oil companies, allied corporate interests, and the ideological provocateurs who abet them spend vast sums of money in order to mislead journalists, mislead voters, mislead elected officials. (Mislead Wikipedians, too.) In doing so, they don't hesitate to attack anyone who supports using sound science as opposed to propaganda. Let's not kid ourselves that they're going to abandon those tactics as long as their short-term profits are at the slightest risk. And please, let's not pretend that their well-funded attacks on legitimate scientists, public officials, and individual citizens trying to do the right thing are somehow equivalent to even the most pointed criticism aimed at the deniers. (There's an analogy here, if I'm not mistaken). Sorry to rant at you. Go consult some good sources, then email me if you want to talk more about this. I hope you have a beautiful Friday. Rivertorch (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well...I stick mainly to the BBC for this thing, but i'll certainly scrutinise what i read a bit more in future.
 * You have a good Friday too Rivertorch! And a good weekend to follow! Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Newtown Public Schools
I was asked for an official document to show that the actual name is Sandy Hook School. Here it is. And official, formal budget from the district's own website. I also provided proof via Sandy Hook's own local newspaper. And the the district's official home page, which shows the names of the school when you hover on the Schools tab. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP seems obsessed with this topic, and has engaged in a great deal of original research to try to override the external sources' common usage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, let's do this in reverse order. Menu tabs aren't noted for verbosity, so your third link counts for exactly nothing, I fear. I suppose you did notice that if you do more than hover on that very same tab and actually click on the Sandy Hook School link, you arrive at the home page of the school's official web site, on which is prominently displayed in 60-point type the phrase "Sandy Hook Elementary School". Didn't you notice? As for the newspaper link, the page is a list. So what? That same paper's lead story mentions "Sandy Hook Elementary School" right there on its home page—or did you not notice that, too? As for the budget document, you did see that it uses the words "Sandy Hook Elementary School" three times (twice on page 37 and once on page 49), right? No? Your own evidence has come back to bite you, and I strongly suggest dropping the stick before someone gets seriously annoyed. Rivertorch (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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