User talk:Rivertorch/Archive13

 R I V E R T O R C H TALK ARCHIVE MID 2013 '''This page is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it.'''

Bikini in UAE
Although UAE has dress code, but every semi autonomus emirate has own interpretation about UAE's dress code and every emirate makes their own rule or at least their own interpretation. Dubai is liberal, although Dubai want polite dress, but there are no sanction to whom use bikini or miniskirt. 100 kilometers north of Dubai, at Ras al-Khaimah emirate, the emirate make new rule in April 2013 that prohibited (will be fined) bikini and also male short-tight swim-pant in their public beach. Thank you for your consideration.Gsarwa (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This relates to this.
 * Hi, Gsarwa. Ideally, we'd discuss this at Talk:United Arab Emirates, but since we're here . . . assuming the foreign-language source you supplied supports all of the above, I'll rewrite and add it later today. Rivertorch (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Let me know if there's any inaccuracy. I cannot read the source. Rivertorch (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Rivertorch, your interpretation is quite well. I only want the readers know that in Uni Arab Emirates (UAE is not a big country) there are many interpretations about attire among the emirates. And sorry that we discuss it in your User talk.Gsarwa (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Article talk pages are usually a better place so that other editors can join the discussion, but this worked out well. Thanks for helping to make a more comprehensive article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Essay
Time to launch it, I think. Do we just slide it into place? and what WP:SILLYNAME shortcut should it have. SUICIDE is used. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's ready, go ahead. I'd like to glance over it but am not going to have time till a little later today. I also haven't looked at the other page (based on my ramblings) in over a week (frankly have wanted to stay the hell away from anything to do with the topic) and that, I think, is going to need some serious attention before going live (or being linked to). Rivertorch (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it and the linked page go together. so let's wait until you've had a further ponder. Hell will not freeze over. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, I think it already did. (See the last sentence here.) Idiotic jokes aside, I see I'm going to have to work on it a little bit (the second page, I mean) and omg I just caught sight of the time. Will be late for an appointment if I don't get the (frozen) hell off the computer. Will look at it tonight. Rivertorch (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready for primetime. WP:SUICIDES would be an option for the shortcut; if so, I suppose it would need a hatnote pointing to WP:SUICIDE. Rivertorch (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I don't think my sandbox should be redirected indefinitely. I move pages so rarely that I can't remember the proper procedure for fixing it, and I'm not in the mood for following step-by-step instructions just now. If you're an old hand at moves, feel free to do the honors. Otherwise, don't worry—I never use a sandbox so I have lots of time to figure it out at my leisure! Rivertorch (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll migrate it, both of it, and your sandbox can be edited at will. All you need to do is to delete what is in there. And I'll hatnote the Suicide thing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We are live at Articles on suicides now, with comments on the talk page about where not to discuss policy. I'm requesting deletion of my userspace pages now we are live Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I hope our efforts will do some good. While the topic is a grim one, it was a pleasure working with you on it. Sorry my attention was so scattered much of the time. Rivertorch (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Grim, yes, but we may have made it less grim in WP terms. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

After the heated RM discussion
You may find Talk:Murder of Daniel Tupý refreshing, where an Rm to rename it thus was supported unanimously. It overlapped the prior one, but the combatants were not drawn to it.

An interesting question now is the name of the article on the murder of the young gentleman who died on a fence in laramie. It really ought to be about his murder, not a pseudo-bio. Fiddle Faddle (talk)


 * I don't know that I agree with you on that, FF. The gentleman in question has posthumously become something of a sociopolitical icon in a way that few other murder victims have become, and I think that may qualify him for a rare exception to the rule. I might further add that his article on Wikipedia, much like his very name in the wider world, has been a magnet drawing every manner of hater, homophobe, and crackpot out of their slimy little caves, and I'm pretty confident they'll smell blood and reemerge for any discussion of a proposed move. If I were you, in the interest of harmony, I'd accept that this is one of those occasional exceptions that should be tolerated even if you dislike its apparent inconsistency. If you do pursue it, I'll either bow out of the discussion entirely or will almost certainly be in the opposing camp. Sorry about that. Rivertorch (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I simply await the rest with amusement and wry interest :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You lost me. The rest of what? Rivertorch (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone, anyone, deciding that latter article should be renamed. I'm not about to do it, but someone will. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well, you're probably right. For me, I'm afraid the thought doesn't give rise to amusement. The operative word, I think, would be dread. Rivertorch (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What interests me there is that it seems, now pretty much everything positive derived form his death has been set in motion or, perhaps, achieved, his murder seems to have emerged as having been financially motivated (robbery) and done by some asswipe coming down from a drug high, not because the lad was homosexual. There is a certain irony, almost, in the awful slaying of a gay lad by what appears to be happenstance, creating so much good in its wake. I'd prefer it that he were alive and that the voice of reason had created the good things, but I wonder if that would ever have happened. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean it "seems to have emerged"? Do you have a good, recent source for that or are you talking about the years-old 20/20 hatchet job cited by various quacking socks and sundry peabrains who heard on FOX TV that hate-crime legislation is plot by secular communists and decided to do a drive-by on the article? This was discussed repeatedly on the talk page, but it has been off my watchlist for some while. Have I missed something in the news? Because the last time I checked, the murder was committed by two asswipes—not one—who tortured him, lashed him to a fence, and left him to the Wyoming autumn elements. So the perps robbed him. So at least one of them was high. So fucking what? Neither of those factoids necessarily speaks to motivation. Rivertorch (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Possibly the item you describe as a hatchet job. I don't think we are on different sides of this discussion, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I wouldn't think we'd be on different sides, no, but one thing I'm frequently reminded of around here is how risky it is to make assumptions about any of my fellow editors. It may be one of the strengths of this community that we're incredibly diverse, with unpredictable intersections and divergences of experience and viewpoint, but it also can be disconcerting. If you really want to talk about MS at some point, email probably would be better, since most of what I'd have to say would be going deep into OR territory and have little or nothing to do with the Wikipedia article. For the moment, suffice it to say that I don't believe I'm feeling up to playing an active role in the kind of discussion that would inevitably happen if someone were to propose moving that article. Maybe next week, maybe next month, but hopefully it won't arise anytime soon. Rivertorch (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A wholly non urgent and unimportant email has winged its way to you. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish People
Firstly i am sorry for my English it isnt good. I suggested add 5 Person to infobox they are important People for Kurds can you add them. I can not add because. You can find pictures on commons. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeboy25 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. As I said on the article's talk page, I have two problems with your request. To clarify a little:
 * I can't find Wikipedia articles for some of the names you mentioned, so I'm not sure they meet our notability requirements. If they aren't notable as Wikipedia defines notable, I'm not sure they would be good candidates for inclusion in the infobox. Keep in mind that the infobox cannot possibly depict every famous Kurd and probably should give preferential treatment to the most historically significant people.
 * I think the table in the infobox might look bad if it didn't have the same number of images in each row. There are five per row, so maintaining the balance would require either adding another row of five or replacing some of the current people.
 * So, for starters, do we have articles on all of these people? If so, please provide links. It would be better if you'd do that on the article's talk page instead of my talk page so that other editors can participate in the discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection Policy
You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

✅. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Kitteh for you!
For the kind words and appreciation! (Not for breakfast)

ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 
 * Awww . . . so adorable. I hope he or she will get along with this one. Catfights are deprecated in user space, I believe. Rivertorch (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll get a dog next time to eat the cats =P
 * ...Then you just need a jackal to eat the dog...and a lion to eat the jackal...and fifty rats to eat the lion...and five owls to eat the rats...And what eats owls? Cats? Damn! Back where we started... Maybe request an animal sanctuary next time to head off these dilemmas Rivertorch? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the pinnacle of the food chain, if I'm not mistaken. Then again, there's this fearsome predator, supposedly in residence here at Wikipedia, although I've never actually shaken paws with it (just heard strange, unsettling roars from a distance). Rivertorch (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Dinosaurs?? Dinosaurs are nowhere on the food chain, they're extinct!
 * And you're lucky this isn't Conservapedia or you would have to prove those even existed on this >6000 year old flat Earth! ツ Jenova  20  (email) 15:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * [Notified by new notify feature, Bishzilla wakes up out of light nap. Is flattered. Fearsome!] Hello little user! [Tries to shake little paw. Difficult to get hold of. Shakes entire little Rivertorch instead.]   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    04:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC).


 * Lmao! You were right Rivertorch, Bishzilla is fearsome! Reverted some changes to your userpage last night - just a heads-up. ツ Jenova  20  (email) 08:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes. Well, I'm sort of back now. Halfway back. Pleased to have confirmation that not all dinosaurs are extinct (and thrilled that Echo is redeeming itself—I'd wondered if I should leave the fearsome one a note or if it would be Notified). Rivertorch (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well at least the animal problem is solved. Feed them to the mighty Bishzilla! =D
 * And have a nice day Rivertorch ツ Jenova  20  (email) 08:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Big Kudos to you!
I appreciate you policing certain aspects of the Philadelphia University Wikipedia Article. Yes I am a part of the PR and web editing team at the University and I appreciate people making changes so that it does not sound like a commercial. It keeps the information more trustworthy. Though there are some who have been making many inaccurate changes. I saw that you stopped one user from making an inaccurate change to our motto back in September. I thank you for that. I would like to reach out to you for your help as we continue to monitor the page's accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.95.240 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. To be honest I had forgotten all about that. I removed the article from my watchlist some while ago, but I see you reverted vandalism there today. I'm now watching the page again and will request that it be locked if things get out of hand. (You can make such a request yourself at WP:RPP.) As I recall, there was some question over identifying a reliable source for the motto. Any help you can give in terms of providing links to reliable sources would be appreciated; you can post such info to the article's talk page. Actually, since you work for the university, ideally you'd propose all your edits instead of making them yourself, to avoid any conflict of interest issues. (You should always feel free to revert blatant vandalism, of course.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I guess I might note that both vandalism and its reversion are coming from the same IP: yours. "P U". Har-de-har. Sure this is a university, not an elementary school? ;) Rivertorch (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Philadelphia University
Just a note that I had a request on the RFPP page for this article when you added yours. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 19:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Great minds think alike. Rivertorch (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Tiger vs Lion
I've added much to the tiger vs lion page, and usually my post was edited because the sources favored the lion. However, when my post was finally accepted it was tagged as "better source needed." Despite this, my source was far more reliable than many others like AllExperts as the 9th source and others, and yet they didn't need to be edited. Doesn't this come off as bias and hurt Wikipedia's credibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. That article is a bit of a mess and was locked down for some time. Both vandalism and recurrent POV-driven original research have been recurrent problems. What you say about the relative reliability of the sources may be perfectly true, but I evaluate each source separately and judge it on its own merits, as is the accepted practice. The reference you added appeared to be a personal web site—albeit a very professional-looking one that likely was written by someone very knowledgeable—and such sites really don't meet the guideline unless they're written by acknowledged experts in the field. (That does happen, but it's rare. See what the policy says.) In tagging it with the "better source" template, my thinking was that it probably is better than no source at all since we're using it merely to verify something that Clyde Beatty said, but that if Beatty said it, it ought to be findable in a book or magazine or at an online source with editorial oversight. The tag may prompt someone (me, for instance, if I ever get around to it!) to look for such a source. In the meantime, if you find any of the other content in the article to be in need of better sourcing, feel free to tag it; the relevant templates are here. If there are so many tags that the page becomes cluttered and hard to read, the entire article can be tagged at the top instead. (If you do that, you also should open a discussion at Talk:Tiger versus lion.) In any event, try not to look on the tag as a mark of shame. I, for one, appreciate your contribution to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Added: I see you removed the tag. Removal of maintenance tags is not recommended unless you fix the underlying issue. I'd appreciate it if you replaced the tag. Rivertorch (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Aaagh! I also see you've racked up multiple warnings this month, including at the Tiger versus lion article. I strongly urge you to undo your last edit and replace the tag. Rivertorch (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I've added the tag again. But you should realize that AllExperts is not a reliable source by any means. I can make the same claim about scores of different websites that were used on that page. I think it is only fair that one look at both sources objectively whether they favor the tiger or the lion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.8.245 (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring the tag. I'll try to take a look at the other citations on the page in the near future. If you think there's a large-scale problem with them, you might consider opening a discussion at Talk:Tiger versus lion. I know there are other editors watching the article, and it would be good to get more eyes on this. Rivertorch (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Rorschach test → Rorschach Test
Is there any time limit? I posted my original proposal on 9 February. The request for discussion, which I posted on 21 May after my attempted move was disallowed, has not been exactly overrun with responses. Do you think a sufficent level of consensus has now been reached? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know that I'm a better judge of that than you are. Remember, I said I had no objections; in other words, I don't think it much matters and I'm neutral, so my !vote shouldn't affect the consensus at all. In my own writing, I'd be disinclined to capitalize the 't'. Consider: Hall effect, Van Allen belt, Allen wrench, Phillips screwdriver, Murphy bed, Parker House roll. Normally the last word of those isn't capitalized, even though the term is named after a person or place. Pavlovian conditioning? Small 'c'. A Google search for Garcia effect (we don't have a redirect but we probably should) indicates that sometimes "effect" is up and sometimes it's down, and sometimes it's both ways on the same page! There isn't necessarily much rhyme or reason to these things. Rivertorch (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I am very wary if using Google as a measure of anything. But in the absense of a clear policy, I'd say that the use by the test publishers themselves and by MeSH, regardless of usage in common with other psychometrics, win it for me. I was really just looking now for an Admin to push the change through. Apparently, I can't do it. Or, at least, I can't see what's preventing it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Presumably someone will wander along eventually and assess the request. There's no urgency to it. Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's only nervous fretting on my part. The serious editors walked away over the real issues with this article. I should really be making it as hard to find as possible. Oh well. By the time the name's changed, maybe they'll have a whole new set of copyrighted blots (unlikely). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh. There is so much hysteria over copyright around here. If it really is primarily a legal issue, then the WMF should take the lead and stop relying on the community to enforce the law. And if it's primarily an ethical issue, considering the current state of copyright law and the corporate world's proclivities, one has to wonder at a bunch of volunteers spending all this time and effort protecting large, wealthy, impersonal entities. I'd better shut up before ramble morphs into rant. (Note to the thought police: I don't knowingly violate copyright law, and I remove clear violations when I see them.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said. (Note to the thought police: I will eventually understand copyright law, honest.) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (Note from the thought police: you're both under arrest; please report to room 101 immediately. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On my way. Double-plus good. Rivertorch (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks Uncle Writ. Phew, I thought we were going somewhere much worse. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ".. someone will wander along eventually". Great. Some kind of explanation might have been nice. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC) But I see that Nathan has some experience with "closing requested moves".
 * You could always go this route. I can't say I think it will get you anywhere, but you never know. You'd have to prove the close itself was improper, and I don't see that. You certainly are entitled to ask the closer for his rationale. Not that you asked for advice, but what I would do (if I wasn't essentially neutral on the whole thing and actually thought it was worth fighting over, that is!) is get all my ducks lined up in a row—i.e., develop a compelling case with some really good parallels for the way we capitalize things in FAs and GAs—and re-present the request in six months or so. The worst outcome would be the same decision and someone complaining you were a tendentious so-and-so who didn't HT. Another day at Wikipedia! Rivertorch (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the content of that box, I think Nathan's close is quite proper, if overstated. What he did not tell me - and what I did not ask him - was if he had seen the other arguments, and the other agreeing editors, on Talk Page, before he closed. I was fully expecting him to say that he was bound by procedure to respond only to what was presented in the linked discussion box. I don't know how Admins are advised in this area. Perhaps you do? I had assumed that all relevant recent discussion on the Talk Page was always considered - which is why I did not copy it all into my reply to WikiDan61! I do hope that Nathan will have the courtesy to reply. Six months? Not sure it's worth six days - my ducks tend to waddle off after about a week... Martinevans123 (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Quack. (Oh, wait, I'm not supposed to say that around here. People might get the wrong idea.) I have no idea if there's any special advice for admins in this area—I'm not one, and neither is Nathan, for that matter—but the two most relevant policies, WP:CLOSE and WP:Consensus, don't address it specifically. Ideally, the RfM would have been placed as a subsection of the Article name section, but it would seem that he did read that section. Based on all of the comments, I can see the close going either way. By my count, there were two supports, two opposes, and a neutral, and nobody's argument was overwhelmingly persuasive. Rivertorch (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How intriguing. Another assumption of mine conveniently blown out of the water. I now feel doubly disappointed that Nathan is not an Admin, lol. Don't forget you provided a fresh argument about the titles for GA candidate articles. (Although, of course, that's the last thing I'd want to see.) I'm sure there may be a few other arguments in favour. I keep thinking of the dear The Beatles. Sigh. But that Uncle Writ looks like a helpful guy... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For The Man, he's pretty much okay. ;) Or she. I don't know if (s)he is an uncle or an aunt, to be honest. And can The Man be a woman? Rivertorch (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The White King is the king of Prospit, and can typically be found leading his troops on the battlefield". Did I say that when I meant the other?? deep apologies, Mrs Writ. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Um? You took it to kind of a weird place, but no, just bog-standard male. (I think there's a term for that now? Cis-something? I dunno.) After all, lest we forget, this is the Internet. (And yeah, that's what my username is a reference to, so it is kinda implied if you get the reference.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A wierd place?! Heaven forefend!! You wouldn't want wiki to take you here when you wanted to go here, would you? Or would you? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so I just spent five minutes trying to figure out what you two are talking about, and I'll never get those five minutes back. (Note to Mr. Wales: are you sure this Wikia thing is such a great idea?) I did think The Mole in the Hole was sort of cute, but now it's lodged in my brain and I can't seem to budge it. Extreme measures may be called for. Rivertorch (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't blame WK. At least his identity is a closely-guarded secret. If you do ever find out what I'm on about, I'd be very grateful if you could tell me. Meanwhile, am off to look for some more tasty ear worms. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I rather doubt that it could be considered a closely-guarded secret; I'm sure it could be pieced together without too much difficulty (and I know that I've accidentally told people my real name on mulitple occasions). Anonymity is more force-of-habit than anything else at this point, although there is a certain comfort that I attach to it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Arrrrgh... I have a "hidden agenda", it seems. It'll be The the Beatles all over again if we're not careful. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to steer well clear, I think. I've indicated neutrality on the issue because it seems rather unimportant to me, but if I did participate in the RfC and push came to shove, I'd probably oppose. Anyway, there's no reason to let it be a big deal, however the RfC turns out. Great controversies require great stubbornness from more than one quarter. In other words, it takes >1 to tango. (Only 1 to twerk, though, but I guess that's neither here nor there.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wise move. Erm ,what a lovely image. But seems I'm a walkover for a few doo-wop blots, already. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Train Songs
Hi, Rivertorch. I removed the Globalize and Article Size templates from the List of train songs. I'd appreciate any feedback you could add to my posting on the article's Talk page. I also notified Cottonshirt and Jax 0677, the editors who applied the templates. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Rivertorch (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I'd say you've brought it to the point of exemplifying what a "List of" article should be. Do we still have Featured Lists? If so, I'll bet it wouldn't take much to get it to that status. Sorry I haven't helped much. I can try to fill in some of the remaining sources, I suppose. Rivertorch (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ipomoea Purpurea
The plant wich seeds contain LSA is Ipomoea Violacea. Ipomoea Purpurea does not contain any LSA and it's not psychoactive. I know this becouse I ate them both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.116.84 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this must be about when I reverted you three weeks ago. Your edit removed sourced content, and you didn't explain what you were up to. Edit summaries are your friends! Wikipedia cannot rely on original research, such as the experiences you relate here. However, I see that the reference contains a dead link, and I'm not so sure about the reliability of the linked site in the first place. What needs to happen now: you, I, or a third party needs to find an unquestionably reliable source that discusses the psychoactive properties (or lack thereof) of I. purpurea and write some new content based on that source. I have no time to do that today. If you'd like to remove the offending content again, feel free—but in doing so, you should be basing the removal on something other than your own personal experiences. (And please do fill in the edit summary field.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on wikipedia, but I am an expert on those plants. I won't change the article anymore, but You are defending a false statement and You demand evidence for the truth. What is supposed to be a reliable source? The best and only way to find ous if a plant is psychoactive is to try it on yourself, but people are afraid. Somebody had to find out... I think that your statement that this plant is psychoactive needs to be confirmed by a reliable source before You write it here.
 * It's not my statement, and I am defending nothing except this encyclopedia's policy on verifiability. If you are a recognized expert on the plants, you will know exactly where to find reliable published sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. If your expertise rests entirely on experiments conducted without rigorous controls and with no peer review, then I'm afraid that's of little use to our purposes. --Rivertorch, writing as Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on Talk:Homosexuality
Hi. Your comment came across as extremely bigoted to me. I do not know if you meant it that way or not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? For starters, please explain precisely how it sounded bigoted. While you're at it, you might also explain what on earth leads to you to wonder whether I might intend to be bigoted. Rivertorch (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. That message came across totally wrong. The part I was referring to was: "The revised wording in the next paragraph appears to place undue weight on the controversial inclusion of asexuality as a fourth category of sexual orientation. It is appropriate that it be mentioned but not that it be given unqualified equal status in Wikipedia's voice, and the former wording seems satisfactory." From this quotation, it appears that you wish to classify asexuality as subordinate to other sexualities. You argue by asserting that it is UNDUE, which I don't think applies, but at the very least requires careful analysis of the sources. I guess the thing that was most disturbing was what I considered to be the flippant tone. I know tone doesn't translate well online, but to me it had seemed derogatory towards asexuals. Again, sorry for the comment above. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To be blunt, you'd have to be fairly drunk and/or blinkered to think that comment was bigoted. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you butt into other peoples conversations in real life too? If not, then don't do it online either. If so, fuck off. People don't like that. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You omitted an important word. You should have said 'please' when you asked Luke to fuck off. Please maintain a much more polite approach to your conversations. Civility is important here. Fiddle   Faddle  20:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "To be blunt, you'd have to be completely blotto to think that comment was bigoted. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so we know it's Monday, and everyone is grumpy. Luke: you're welcome to comment on my talk page anytime, but I suggest clicking the "Show preview" button, reading what you write, and considering how you'd feel if someone wrote it to you. You also might have given Nathan a chance to reply first. If you had, you'd have seen that he was prepared to apologize. Nathan: Conversations on talk pages aren't private. If you want to ensure that no one butts in, you're welcome to email me. Anyway, if you really think it's helpful to tell Luke off, there's a handy link in Luke's signature specifically inviting you to tell him off on his own talk page. LOL. Btw, I appreciate your apology and accept it.

On to more substantive matters. I took Homosexuality off my watchlist a couple years back. The article was watched by many editors I trust, and I just got fed up with seeing the perennial bitching and trolling on the article's talk page and getting caught up in an endless string of contentious discussions. Having dipped my toe back in the water today, I have to wonder what on earth I was thinking. For the record, I consider the wording, Homosexuality is one of the three main categories of sexual orientation, along with bisexuality and heterosexuality, within the heterosexual–homosexual continuum (with asexuality sometimes considered a fourth), to be verifiable and neutral. Due weight should be determined by what the sources say, and I believe that the parenthetical (arguably subordinate) position of asexuality in the sentence is in accordance with the sources. Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, River. Like I told you before, there generally isn't that much drama going on at the Homosexuality article and its talk page these days. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Come in, the water is fine!" Rivertorch (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (TPS): - a vital research resource? That fish tank is about as private as Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. That's either a serious shark hickey or a death-bite to the jugular, and I can't tell which. You certainly have a talent taking discussions to unexpected places. But I saw your username and immediately the stupid mole song popped back into my head. Time for a mini-wikibreak. Eight hours or so should do the trick. Lord knows what will be on my talk page when I return. Will I laugh or cry or both? Rivertorch (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what Wikipedia does to editors. People deserve to be told! I used to be almost normal!! (well, ok, debatable...) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost normal, huh? You sure you weren't, by any chance, Abby Normal? Rivertorch (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Feldman's my middle name! Dr F Fronk-en-stein (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Continuum ? LGBTQQI, LGBTTIQQ2SA, LGBTQQIA, LGBTQIA ? May the Force be.... with someone else - passive resistance is so much less dramatic and more soothing .--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 07:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

tb
Finally replied on my talk page. NE Ent 02:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look in a bit. Rivertorch (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

excessive detail mark oliphant
Hi There I don't mind where you put it. Please do the right thing and replace.Kelly222 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone else already moved it to a different section. Thanks for adding it to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice re Mhazard9
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Obviously I'm not complaining about you, but you may wish to comment on Mhazard9's apparent block evasion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying me. I don't think I had much to add, but I commented there anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Biology and sexual orientation copy-editing
Thanks for your thoughts which are appreciated. To be frank, I have found the reception to be a bit high-handed to what is going to be a very large amount of work on a very jumbled article of some importance. It's good that the three of us are assuring each other of our intended good faith - that said, I look forward to a thoughtful reaction to what has already been hours of work, and will continue to be hours of work to get this article re-structured into basic, decent shape.Tobeprecise (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. (Note for posterity: this was in response to a post of mine, which was in turn a response to this post of Tobeprecise's.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note to self (and stalkers)
You will not die if you don't check your watchlist for a day. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ... but if you do, we'll stalk your grave. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds creepy or like a line from "Taxman". I don't know which. Maybe both. But I had a great break, and now I've just removed 1100 pages from my watchlist, and who knows? It might just enhance my longevity. I'm actually rather proud of myself: despite the necessity of using a phone instead of a keyboard and despite my being in good spirits (or, more accurately, good spirits being in me)—two disadvantages that led to several failed login attempts and an equal number of uncivil utterances—I posted the above with no typos. Yay! Rivertorch (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! 1100 pages?! Some us have watchlists that stretch way, way ... into the hundreds.... Still, we can't go on hoarding for ever, can we - as our Gene said "The Taxman Cometh"! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages
Since you have over 100 edits at Agatha Christie, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Rivertorch (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Tenure Edit
Hi Rivertorch,

I don't completely understand why you took out my example,. You say "it seems like undue weight to single out a particular university system in this general article." But as I look at the entry as a whole, it is full of specific examples of the general issues, and they are actually helpful because they illustrate the claims. Can we put it back?

Thanks,

BrownandSpooner (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It seemed as if it was singling out one institution (and, for that matter, one person). If you think it's appropriate, feel free to re-add it and I'll take another look in a few days. I'm traveling and my WP access is only by phone just now, so it's cumbersome for me to review the entire article. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Summer time
Regarding this edit, are you planning on doing that thing where people go outside and stop editing for a period of time? I believe certain (non hermit types (i call them hermites =P)) leave their homes to socialise. I once heard of someone with a cousin, who had a friend like that. Have fun in the sun! ツ Jenova  20  (email) 17:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I may have had too much sun over the holiday weekend, and it addled my brain. Or did I have too much fun? Probably both, to tell the truth. And I socialized with people who have no real idea what Wikipedia is—shocking, no? Rivertorch (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's good to hear! I'll email you! ツ Jenova  20  (email) 18:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia naming problem in UN
The best way to be added is after subchapter on Self-determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.234.165 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute
Dear Rivertorch, very good idea for improving text on the dispute is to incorporate text on legality of denomination (the FYROM) in the article of the dispute. It is the only way to understand way Macedonia and Greece never made any compromise. Basically, Macedonians believe that they are double - crossed at the admission process in the UN. Arguments are in general: The admission of Macedonia to membership in the United Nations in April 1993 required the new member to be “provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.” The term “difference” here refers to the dispute between Greece and Macedonia over the use of the applicant state’s name. In its Resolution 817 of April 7, 1993 (by which the applicant state was recommended for admission to the United Nations), the Security Council “urge[d] the parties to continue to cooperate with the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia in order to arrive at a speedy settlement of their difference.”  Thus, the admission of Macedonia to the United Nations was subject to its acceptance of being provisionally referred to as the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (FYROM) and of negotiating with Greece over its name. The conditions for the admission of states were the subject of exhaustive political and legal deliberations at the United Nations during the 1940s when many states were applying for membership. During the first several years of the Organizations’ existence, admission to, and even representation in, the United Nations were subject to various conditions (outside the scope of those contained in Article 4 of the Charter), which in some cases required recognition of the applicant (as an international subject) prior to its admission to membership. In an effort to resolve the dilemmas regarding the legal aspects of the conditions required for admission to membership and to eliminate the various stalemates that were occurring in the admission process, the UN General Assembly, by Resolution 113 (II) of November 17, 1947, requested that the International Court of Justice give an advisory opinion on the following question: Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article? The following conditions are expressly set forth in Article 4, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter, which provides: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other [i.e., other than the original UN members] peaceloving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.” The next paragraph of the article states the procedural rule that “[t]he admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.” In its Advisory Opinion, Admission of a State to the United Nations, the Court first concluded that the question put to it in an abstract form had a legal nature. Consequently, the Court was required to provide an interpretation of Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Charter and, by virtue of Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of its Statute and as “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations,” it had the competence to give such an interpretation. The Court then observed that paragraph 1 of Article 4 in effect contains five conditions; to be admitted to membership in the United Nations, an applicant must (1) be a state; (2) be peace-loving; (3) accept the obligations of the UN Charter; (4) be able to carry out these obligations; and (5) be willing to do so. Further, the Court found that the question put to it by the General Assembly could be reduced to the following: are the conditions stated in paragraph 1 of Article 4 exhaustive in character in the sense that an affirmative reply would lead to the conclusion that a Member is not legally entitled to make admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided for in that Article, while a negative reply would, on the contrary, authorize a Member to make admission dependent also on other conditions.

After thorough consideration, the International Court of Justice formulated its advisory opinion stating that a member of the United Nations that is called upon, by virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a state to membership in the Organization, is not juridically entitled to make its consent dependent on conditions not expressly provided in paragraph 1 of that article. Among the most important arguments used by the Court in arriving at the above opinion were that (1) the UN Charter is a multilateral treaty whose provisions impose obligations on its members; (2) the text of paragraph 1 of Article 4, “by the enumeration which it contains and the choice of its terms, clearly demonstrates the intention of its authors to establish a legal rule which, while it fixes the conditions of admission, determines also the reasons for which admission may be refused”; and (3) the enumeration of the conditions in paragraph 1 of Article 4 is exhaustive (and “not merely stated by way of guidance or example”), which follows from the fact that if the opposite were the case, “[i]t would lead to conferring upon Members an indefinite and practically unlimited power of discretion in the imposition of new conditions.” In its deliberations, the Court specifically analyzed whether the political character of the organs responsible for admission (the Security Council and the General Assembly, by virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 4), or for the maintenance of world peace (the Security Council, pursuant to Article 24 of the Charter), engendered arguments leading to the contrary conclusion regarding the exhaustive character of the conditions enumerated in paragraph 1 of Article 4. The Court rejected this interpretation and held that “[t]he political character of an organ cannot release it from the observance of the treaty provisions established by the Charter when they constitute limitations on its powers or criteria for its judgment.”11 Thus, the Charter limits the freedom of political organs and no “political considerations” can be superimposed on, or added to, the conditions set forth in Article 4 that could prevent admission to membership. (The advisory opinion of the Court makes it apparent that, besides their exhaustive and explicit character, the conditions laid down in Article 4 of the Charter have two additional characteristics: (1) they must be fulfilled before admission is effected; and (2) once they are recognized as having been fulfilled, the applicant state acquires an unconditional right to UN membership. This last feature also follows from the “openness” to membership enshrined in Article 4, which comports with the universal character of the Organization.) The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice was presented to the General Assembly at its third session, in December 1948. At that session the General Assembly adopted Resolution 197 (III), by which it “[r]ecommend[ed] that each member of the Security Council and of the General Assembly, in exercising its vote on the admission of new Members, should act in accordance with the foregoing opinion of the International Court of Justice.” (This resolution and the Court’s advisory opinion have direct legal relevance to the issue of the admission of Macedonia to membership in the United Nations, since these documents interpret the Charter in a manner that limits the power of the UN organs to impose conditions on admission. The preamble to Security Council Resolution 817, by which Macedonia was recommended for admission, recognized that “the applicant fulfils the criteria for membership laid down in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.”  According to Admission of a State to the United Nations and General Assembly Resolution 197, this statement means that the applicant has fulfilled all the required conditions for admission to membership in the United Nations and that no other conditions may be imposed.  Contrary to the usual wording of Security Council resolutions recommending admission of a state, Resolution 817, after recognizing the fulfillment of the conditions in Article 4, contains an additional consideration, “that a difference has arisen over the name of the State, which needs to be resolved in the interest of the maintenance of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region.”  This condition, which is found in the introductory part of the resolution, is reflected in its paragraph 2, which recommends the admission of the applicant state to membership in the United Nations. It describes “this State” as “being provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State.” The Macedonian Government strongly objected to the use of this provisional name, stating that “under no circumstances” was it prepared to accept that designation as the name for the country. Nevertheless, the text of the resolution remained unchanged. As a consequence, the imposed obligation to accept this provisional denomination and the closely related obligation to negotiate over the name of the country served as additional conditions that it was required to satisfy so as to gain admission to the United Nations. These unusual conditions in Resolution 817 are extraneous to the limited list laid down in Article 4. Furthermore, these conditions transcend the act of admission in time. Since the Charter makes no provision for other conditions for admission, it appears that the conditions imposed on Macedonia have no legal basis. Certainly, the ICJ’s advisory opinion makes clear that all the conditions for admission to membership must be fulfilled before admission is effected. Since the conditions that were imposed represent purely political considerations, they are incompatible with the letter and spirit of the UN Charter.)


 * I hope that presented arguments may be useful to understand the nature (multilateral, rather than bilateral) of the problem relating to the dispute, and inclusion of them into the article could improve the text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.234.165 (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear IP, I usually avoid invoking tl;dr. If someone takes the time and trouble to write something long and detailed and wants me to read it, I like to give it my best shot. In this case, even if I had the time or could summon the patience, it would be pointless because I know nothing about the Macedonia naming dispute and, as far as I recall, have never edit any article related to that topic. How on earth did you decide to post to my talk page? Rivertorch (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I see belatedly that I did answer an edit request at Talk:Macedonian naming dispute back in April. That was a random event, I'm afraid, and I'm not familiar enough with the topic to fairly evaluate your proposed addition. In general terms, I'd say that it appears to contain a fair amount of original research, which isn't good. The best thing you can do is to find reliable secondary sources, make sure it is worded neutrally, and make another edit request at Talk:Macedonian naming dispute to let the regulars who monitor the article review it. If there's any way you could make it shorter, that would probably be helpful. Rivertorch (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am in two minds
I am perfectly capable of creating Suicide of Carlos Vigil and there is broadly enough WP:RS material:


 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2365115/Heartbreaking-letter-penned-bullied-teen-Carlos-Vigil-Twitter-killed-himself.html
 * http://www.latinpost.com/articles/1201/20130716/carlos-vigil-suicide-teen-takes-life-bullying-tweets-loser-freak.htm
 * http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/07/bullied-n-m-gay-teen-posts-suicide-note-online-before-taking-his-own-life/

But I have a fair bit going on in real life right now, and I am not sure I can do it justice. The real question is "Do we need another sad Bullycide article? Fiddle   Faddle  19:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have Internet access where I am right now, except via my phone. I should be able to reply substantively later today or tomorrow. -Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no rush, Evil Twin! Someone else may choose to create the article anyway, of course. Fiddle   Faddle  12:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, hell. Having read about it now, what can I say? Wikipedia is full of sad articles because the world is full of sad events. Someone else is bound to create the article if you don't, so it seems to me the real question is whether you want to create it. If you do, I'll help, although my own RL goings-on mean my time is limited. Worst-case scenario: someone creates Carlos Vigil, requiring either a rewrite and a move or else an AfD and a starting over from scratch. Cross your fingers, knock on wood. Rivertorch (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Question. Per Death of Lee Rigby (a killed soldier) naming style, wouldn't it be more appropriate to call the article Death of Carlos Vigil? Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 16:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In answer to the question on name, no, Suicide of Foo is the currently accepted style. WP:SUICIDES may refer, though I cannot quite remember. With regard to whether I wish to write it, yes, but I don;t have the emotional bandwidth at present. Equally there was, when I checked last only a small (though RS) set of sources. I suspect it would go to AfD anyway once created unless substantial. Fiddle   Faddle  20:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it probably would. And maybe it should: I don't think there's evidence yet of sustained national/international coverage, let alone in-depth reporting from a RS. My suggestion is to wait and see. If, in a couple weeks, it looks like it would be highly AfD-resistant, then I'm willing to do the initial writing. In the meantime, for whatever it's worth, here are three more sources:, , . (I think we can safely abandon the Daily Mail.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion to wait and see has merit. I despise the Daily Fail but it passes RS. Fiddle   Faddle  21:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Huh. So do FOX News and The Washington Times, but that doesn't mean I'd use them if I could possibly avoid it. Rivertorch (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

More famous Kurd
Hi, i can not edit Kurdish People page so i need your help can you add there are more famous Kurd ; Darin Zanyar, Ahmet Kaya, Namosh, Sadet Karabulut and Özlem Çekiç, Adnan Karim, Widad Akrawi, Yosef Shiloach, Mehmed Uzun and Simko Shikak because i could not edit page i saw you at talk page so i wrote this message to you. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousBoy2 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * - Since this is an article about Kurdish people and not just a generic list of Kurdish people, why should all these be included? Wouldn't List of Kurds be more appropriate? Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 09:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * if you can show that these people are genuinely suitable for this article then there is no reason not to add them, but the prior comment is correct about the preferred location. Fiddle   Faddle  11:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both my TPSes are absolutely right, in theory, but here's a little context to put this specific proposal into perspective. The article suffers from severe edit warring and has been protected at least 20 times since it was created, and it would seem that disputes over images account for a good part of the controversy. Why? I have no idea. I know nothing about famous Kurds and merely answered an edit request there back in May. Apparently some Kurds are good to depict, other Kurds aren't good to depict, and still other Kurds may not be Kurds at all—and folks disagree. The infobox collage is a magnet for contention, I have no particular interest in what happens, and in fact I thought I'd already unwatched the article. So, AnonymousBoy2, here's my answer: The collage currently depicts 30 famous Kurds and can't reasonably be expanded, so adding more famous Kurds means removing other famous Kurds, and people will object. I'm not going to get involved. Ask yourself if the famous Kurds currently depicted are reasonably representative of famous Kurds in general, and if the answer just might be yes or even maybe, consider leaving well enough alone. If the answer is a blatant no, either make a formal edit request at Talk:Kurdish people or go make some productive edits for a while and prove yourself worthy of being able to edit protected pages yourself. And if, by any chance, you've contributed under more than one account, don't do that anymore; pick one and only one. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marlene Dietrich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . I didn't add the link, but now I have removed it. Rivertorch (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender
Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Rivertorch (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

MiszaBot on Talk: George Mallory
Hey,

You briefly commented that setting the bot loose on the page would be a good idea. Since I've never done anything like that before (but will certainly learn how to!), could you possibly do so and I'm sure that I'll learn something from the code as well? :)

Freedom to share (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me look at it over the weekend (which could be today, if we're going by UTC, or could be later). I haven't set up page archiving in ages and am liable to make a hash out of it if I try now. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Grab it from my talk page if you like, but remember a different MBot does articles and users, so tell the bot= parameter which one is doing the job (You may need to wait to see after the first run! they happen at the same time each day, but not sure quite when. It seems to go in alphabetical order!). My basic settngs are:

Plus

Note that algo= in the first and age= in the second ought to match. The first is a bot instruction, the second is for reader information. archive= the location the first archive, which should be a subpage of the talk page. That does not need to exist because the bot will create it, and add a competent header to it. DO remember to set counter = 1 for the first time. it gets updated automatically thereafter

So you need to decide on algo, and on maxarchivesize. For an article I suggest algo=old(30d) unless consensus differs, and minthreadsleft probably ought to be 10 or so Fiddle   Faddle  09:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, a MiszaBot tutorial! Thanks. I guess I'd better give it a shot. As I recall, I need to create the first archive page before I do anything else . . . or does the bot do that for me? Rivertorch (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I think you answered that before I even asked it. Such psychic powers—it's spooky. Rivertorch (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, I did it (and will sweat bullets until MiszaBot next makes its rounds). Why oh why don't we have a wizard for this? It's almost as bad as moving an article (but not so bad as filing a 3RR complaint). :-p Rivertorch (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you leave Archives until the first run, to add it in afterwards, or did it slip your memory? Each is fine. :). I thought you'd appreciate the notes. I sweated buckets over this allegedly simple task on my talk page! Fiddle   Faddle  12:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In reading the instructions here and the documentation here, I was under the impression that Archives would be redundant. Is that wrong? Rivertorch (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Archives sets up on the talk page the index of archive pages so it is easy to find. Drop this in after the Miszabot stuff and see:

Voila, a neat little archive with search box arrives, top right hand side. I'll let you do it so you can see for the future. I need to write better instructions. So does Miszabot! Fiddle  Faddle  18:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and WP:ARCHIVE could use attention too. Honestly, if I could code anything more complicated than html and wikimarkup I'd create a perfectly splendid little wizard to generate the archiving instructions; it wouldn't be hugely complicated. Anyway, I've added the template at your suggestion. I dimly remember adding it to other talk pages back in the day, but I got the impression last night that Template:talk header would create its own archive links once the archives are begun. No? I'm too preoccupied at present to go prowl around looking at other talk pages to find an example. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My impression is that it creates it, yes, but on the new archive pages! Of course I may be wrong. The entire area was created by people who enjoy cutting arcane code, I think, and them are amused when we mere mortals start to sweat. Fiddle   Faddle  19:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wonder of wonders, I did manage to screw it up. Check out where MiszaBot placed the archived threads: Talk:George Mallory/Archive 1 1. Presumably this has something to do with that "1" in the "archive" parameter— |archive = Talk:George Mallory/Archive 1 %(counter)d —which I can't remember now why I put there (but I'm sure there must have been a reasonable reason). I'm guessing that if I remove it and then move Talk:George Mallory/Archive 1 1 to Talk:George Mallory/Archive 1, all will be well, but I think I'll wait for your input lest I wind up having to undo my undoing. Sigh. Rivertorch (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Almost everyone screws it up the first time. You're in good company. Yes, the extra '1' did the damage. I've been in and tidied it for you. The diff will show you all I did. Saw that before I saw your message here, and wanted to save you the hassle of moving things around and editing the code. Fiddle   Faddle  07:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It it were my first time I wouldn't be cringing, but I've actually done this before—just not in a long time. It's not like riding a bicycle (he says, wobbling wildly down the street, careening into sundry objects). Anyway, thanks for fixing it! Rivertorch (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (Note for cyberarchaeologists of the future: cause and effect. That worked even better than I'd hoped. Teach a man to fish . . . Rivertorch (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC))

GG talk
Kudos, Rivertorch, for your eloquent statement about G's sexuality and relationships. You perhaps read that I made this point several times in my lengthy effort to defend the assertions made in "Relationships" section. However, you are the first person to actually respond it it and emphasize its significance. Do you see any changes that could be made to the section or do you think it presents a clear picture that reflects the best current writing and research we have? Thanks again for your succinct and edifying comment--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In its current state, the section looks pretty good. I certainly see no major issues, and the sourcing looks perfectly adequate for the assertions made. If there's one thing that bothers me just a little, it's that her opposite-sex relationships are discussed in the first paragraph while her same-sex relationships are discussed in the second paragraph—segregation of a sort. I wish there were a way to smoothly integrate the two, but I'm not sure there is. The objections raised on the talk page are similar to various complaints I've seen raised when articles about deceased people call into question their subjects' sexual orientation. Some people don't like it. But as long as it's reliably sourced and given due weight, such content is vital if the article is to have any pretensions to comprehensiveness. I'll keep the page watchlisted for at least a few days and speak up if I think I have anything worthwhile to say. The category removals don't bother me too much, btw. Categories come and go, and half the time nobody notices. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think integrating the two sections (straight/gay) would indeed be ideal. But I too have no idea at this point how to do it. Its current structure certainly privileges the heterosexual angle over the gay. But I chose to put the latter second presuming a cascade of protest and irritability if I didn't and didn't want to derail the entire effort.


 * I'm hoping your comment on the talk p. will be a coda to this long discussion (exhausting for me). I agree with you about cats. I don't follow them at all. Again, I appreciate your thoughtful and considerate comments on this subject. You've made, I hope, an important contribution to Wiki.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'd like to respond to something you said recently that was unrelated to that article, and I wish you had email enabled. Rivertorch (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Does email enabled mean anyone can email me? Definitely don't want that. Any way I can just enable it for selected users?Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah; me too. (On both counts). The preferences page didn't seem to offer that choice though, so I'd be glad to find out I was wrong. Alternatively, I suppose it would be possible to enable email for a pre-arranged (through normal talk pages) period of time, use the on-Wiki email to exchange actual email addresses (primary or special-purpose), then disable email through Wiki again. This assumes the parties trust each other enough to give them a real email address, of course. :) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Enabling your email will allow any registered user—i.e., anyone with a Wikipedia account—to email you; IPs cannot use the feature. The beauty of the Wikipedia email function, imo, is that as the recipient of an email your address isn't revealed to the sender unless you choose to reply. And since you can associate your Wikipedia account with the email address of your choice, including "throwaway" web mail addresses set up exclusively for Wikipedia, you can maintain pseudonymity even if you do reply. It's totally up to you. I've had my email enabled for most of my time here and have rarely found anything objectionable in my inbox, but your mileage may vary. Bottom line: if you're not comfortable enabling email, then don't. Fat&#38;Happy, your suggestion hadn't occurred to me. It's probably a good workaround for those who are expecting problems, but it certainly would require some coordination. Rivertorch (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Rt, well how do I go about setting it up to maintain pseudonymity if I reply? Can't make my address available because it's associated to my job and the world would then learn exactly who I am, what I do, what I look like, links, and all the other crap that goes with institutional websites. Still intrigued by the question you say you have of me.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No question, just a general comment based on something you said a day or two back. Don't worry about it; it wasn't important. As I said, you can link your Wikipedia account with the email address of your choice. There are Yahoo, gmail, mail.com, and innumerable other web mail providers out there, none of which require you to provide your name. If you didn't already know that, it's probably best to leave things as they are. Rivertorch (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rivertorch. (by the way, I love your username) Yeah, don't have gmail account, etc., which I should, but it just simplifies my life not to check two accounts all the time, not to mention emailing relevant people to with new address. GG talk p. has been quiet since your final message. Seems so far to have persuaded the doubters. But I'm sure others will be back at another time. I wanted to add at one point, well, using the criteria for "factual evidence" that you demand for confirmation of non-heterosexualuality, then heterosexuals would have to state themselves that they are or were heterosexual and engaged in heterosexual acts. Marriage and children, of course, confirm nothing. Take care, Classicfilmbuff (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, didn't mean that ""factual evidence" that you demand for confirmation of non-heterosexualuality"; I meant what others demand. Glad I came back to correct this. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I got what you meant. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:TPS: Blimey, I never knew GG's sexuality was ever the subject of public debate?! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blimey indeed, (and cor, while we're at it). For the record, that's not the GG at issue. For all you know, we could be talking about the Green Giant. Rivertorch (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cripes!! He's such a stud muffin... I hear him and that Dough Boy are a bit of an item. But that little green off-the-shoulder number is a bit of a give away, isn't it, darling. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're even weirder than I thought. Think I'll collapse this before it spontaneously collapses under its own weight. Rivertorch (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

DiCaprio's girlfriend
Hi, I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia. You undid my last edit -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonardo_DiCaprio&oldid=569263527&diff=prev Can you please tell where did I go wrong? If it were for the word "currently", it could have been replaced by "has been reported dating" Or was there any problem with the source? Thanks Msec109 (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Msec109. Thanks for taking the time to discuss. The word "currently" was the main problem, and the alternative wording you've suggested is certainly preferable. Articles on celebrities frequently suffer from the addition of unverifiable rumors, so I try to set a fairly high bar for the sourcing on those articles I watch. In this case I called source "iffy", and I do think the Daily Mail is a suboptimal source, but the information is verifiable easily enough (with pictures, no less), so I think it's appropriate to add it in again. If you do that, I'll convert the reference to the "cite news" template so you can see how to do that for future reference. Rivertorch (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Rivertorch, Thanks for your response. I have added it again. Also, I have tried to use the aforementioned "cite news" template. I understood your concerns for undoing the edit. Please let me know if there are any discrepancies. Msec109 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Well, "reportedly" might be better than "reported", come to think of it, but no biggie. Thanks for following up. (Deep philosophical question: why did Echo tell me I had one new message when I had two? I almost missed this one, and that is not the first time this has happened. Boo hiss. Let's picket Jimbo's office.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute
Dear Rivertorch, if you want to help Macedonia to resolve its case in UN, now it is a good moment! Macedonia is recognized by its Constitutional name Republic of Macedonia by 134 countries, and few more countries will soon recognize Macedonia under its Constitutional name. If English Wikipedia decide to include statements of dr Igor Janev in the article Macedonia naming dispute, it could play historical role in the diplomatic history of RM. So it could be welcome to include mentioned statements since many non-governmental organizations and political parties support strategy to use majority of countries in General Assembly of UN to replace provisional name (FYROM) with Constitutional one. That may be the only solution, for problem with name (dated from 1993 to 2013). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFA.RM (talk • contribs) 00:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear MFA.RM, please read WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect history, not make history. Rivertorch (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice re: user Mmay2
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * I suspect our cartoon editor is a user who's been doing this for a long time, under different accounts. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, hell. When it rains, it pours (at least as far as ANI is concerned). I figured Mmay2's edits were some inside-joke sort of thing, a cultural reference that went over my head. I did spot-check some of the user's earlier edits and they looked constructive, at least on the surface. Do we need to go through the contribs with a fine-tooth comb, do you think? I don't have anything helpful to add at ANI and I'll be offline for a few hours starting very soon. Rivertorch (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A flat-out pain in the backside, where the user mixes legitimate edits with disruptive changes and throws in the occasional copyright violation for fun. I've no interest in going through the hundreds of edits by different accounts, and won't presume to ask you to do so, either. Not the sexiest report to bring to ANI, but it merits administrative attention. Mostly I wanted to let you know you were on to something. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Much obliged for the heads-up. I will take a somewhat closer look at the user's edits tomorrow. Rivertorch (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page discussion
Hello Rivertorch. I wanted some admin advice about completely blanking an article Talk Page and whether or not this is contrary to wikipedia editing policy. I can't find anything in Help:Using talk pages. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a policy that addresses the question per se. The guideline is WP:TPG, but context is everything, and various policies and guidelines might apply depending on the circumstances. Blanking could be vandalism if it's deliberate and intended to harm the project, it could be POINT-y, it could be a sign of battleground behavior, and so on. It also could be well-intended and constructive (e.g., removing something not for public consumption, pending the arrival of an oversighter) even if it's not explicitly endorsed by any policy or guideline (e.g., a talk page consisting solely of a wall of text written in a foreign language or otherwise incomprehensible). Without knowing more, I really couldn't offer an opinion. Rivertorch (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the clarification. By all means take a look at Talk:Northern Sky, if you can. I really don't know what to do. The other editor there seems to want to treat the Talk Page, if not the whole article, as his own. I've tried to engage in constructive discussion, but all I have received is a stream of insults. I don't see why I should have to abandon that article because another editor has decided I'm "an annoyance". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. well, take a look at the history anyway, as everything has been carefully "tidied away".
 * Fortunately, it has now all been restored again by an uninvolved editor. So it seems that order has been restored, for now at least. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and now there's a battle about whether the whole Talk Page (apart from the last thread with all the insults), should be archived or not. Hmm... don't hold your breath. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't a bit of judicious hatting be employed - restore the page but hat the insults? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hatting would have been better, yes. Rivertorch (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, here's my two cents. You and the other editor are completely talking past each other. Without brushing up on the topic of the article (which I know nothing about) and extensively scrutinizing its recent history, edit by edit (which I'm not inclined to do), I really can't offer an informed opinion on how things got that way or how things might get back on track. My opinion—which counts for absolutely nothing, as far as I know—is that the talk page archiving (it's not exactly blanking if it's archived) didn't help matters, but I'm finding it hard to imagine that making a big deal out of it will help matters either. The discussion was going nowhere, after all. If I were in your shoes, I'd cut my losses and go edit somewhere else for a while. Then again, you're in your own shoes, so you should do what you think is best. Either way, good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you for this, but, given that another day has passed with no action whatsoever against those editors, I've more-or-less lost whatever faith is left in the administrators to do their job and therefore I have no real desire to participate on this site any more. I shouldn't have gotten involved in a part of the site where there is such a permissive attitude among editors towards some people's actions. I'll thank you again for your message, though. :) Haipa Doragon (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * All I can say is that I've felt the same way myself on more than one occasion, but I always return in the end because I still think I might be able to do some good. Maybe I'm deluding myself—who knows? Wikipedia is something of a microcosm of the society that created it, and that's both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Rivertorch (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
Thank you for assuming good faith, it was.--Auró (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I figured out which edit you're talking about. If so, well, it would be pretty hard not to assume good faith about something like that. I fail to notice things all the time! Rivertorch (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice
Hi Rivertorch. I'm not going to go into intricate details here and just want to know your opinion. Let me first say that I usually don't do things like this or leave one-worded summaries. This case I found special, here was something users fought so much about, years ago, whether to keep it or not; the argument seemed so pointless and went on in circles (it's not censored etc). In my mind, the solution was simple: "Something that is clearly has its physical description explained (it's colourless and...) does not need, an out-of-focus image which seems highly contentious by majority, emphasising on that aspect rather than the topic at hand. (Pardon me if anything sounds like a pun) Why not remove it now, when all the conflicts have died down and solve this problem quietly and quickly? "

After you did that, I guess there must be a good reason why it's still there, which I haven't seen in the talk page. As a veteran editor, can you tell me what's your opinion? I'm really curious and need your advice, I really thought that was the best and simplest solution. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ugog Nizdast. Thanks for contacting me. Assuming you're referring to the two most recent edits here, my take on it goes like this:
 * There's nothing wrong with a one-word edit summary, but your summary ("irrelevant") wasn't quite accurate. Relevant: Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand (American Heritage Dictionary—see they do the same pun!) I think it's pretty clear the image is relevant. Whether it's entirely appropriate for the article is another matter which your summary didn't address.
 * I've been watching the article for the better part of a year, and it has been fairly stable in its current form. There has been no recent discussion about the image nor was there consensus to remove the image at a previous time.
 * Removing the image now would solve nothing. If I hadn't reverted, someone else inevitably would have—and probably quite soon.
 * If you'd like to start a new discussion at the article's talk page, I'm willing to discuss. I'll tell you up front that, while I couldn't care less whether that particular image is used, I believe the article needs to be illustrated and that a non-photographic illustration would be of little or no value. Rivertorch (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I was thinking of giving my reason instead of using that word, but I did it in the name of being bold. I have no intention of disrupting the peace of this article, and if the majority find this okay, then I shouldn't argue. If there's no better solution available than say, an image of it in a Petri dish, then I rest my case. I admit though, I was a bit "taken aback" when I first saw this article :) Good day to you, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly fine to be bold and, if you get reverted, let it go if you don't want to discuss it. I have no doubt lots of people are taken aback by various things they see on Wikipedia. It has even happened to me a couple of times, although it didn't involve an image relating to anatomy or bodily function. What I ask myself in cases like this is: is there a decent chance that a photograph will contribute to readers' understanding of the topic in a way that well-written descriptive prose alone (or, in some cases, prose illustrated by a drawing) cannot? If the answer is yes, then WP:CENSORED should apply unconditionally and the image should stay regardless of its tendency to shock or offend. My opinion, fwiw. There is sometimes room for compromise about the particulars (e.g., choice of image) if you want to pursue it. Rivertorch (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Pangender
An article that you have been involved in editing, Genderqueer, has been proposed for a merge with the article Pangender. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --April Arcus (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm afraid I have little knowledge of the topic(s) and cannot offer an informed opinion. Rivertorch (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why Can't We Have Wikipedia Pages Critisism
Rivertorch, I'm Leoesb1032. I noticed that this IP address is puting these statements on to various talk pages and I think it is vandalism. I found it on the Main page talk page and I deleted it and put a warning on his talk page. Leoesb1032 (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (Referencing this thread.) It looks as if you're right. Hopefully, they'll get bored with it and just stop. Rivertorch (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

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