User talk:Rivertorch/Archive15

R I V E R T O R C H TALK ARCHIVE EARLY 2014 '''This page is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it.'''

Why do you keep DENYING that the Russian language has 400 million native speakers in the world?
Hey buddy, it seems very low class of you to remove my FACTUAL piece of information about the Russian language article.

The People's Friendship University of Russia receives hundreds of millions of applications, compliments and inquiries to their institute each year via email, fax, telephone, letters and people in-person who SPOKE TO THEM IN RUSSIAN!

If you don't believe me, then call them yourself and ask them. THEY KEEP ACTUAL PHYSICAL RECORDS that proves that there are more than 400 million native speakers in the world.

What does that BRITISH-OWNED and ANTI-RUSSIAN website called Ethnologue have to PROVE that there is not 400 million native Russian speakers in the world?

How can you be a FANATIC of this FICTIONAL WEBISTE (Ethnologue) that pulls Frivolous and deceitful "statistics" out of their own ass?

If you believe Ethnologue, then I guess you believe in the Boogeyman, Santa Claus and Frank Ocean as well?

You are really low-class pal for putting a warning against me pal. Why don't you be a real man and prove to me that the People's Friendship University Of Russia is wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.105.176 (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2014


 * According to the source used for this article the amount was 160 million in 2007. It is impossible that the Russian population now has "A" - 400 million native speakers since then just 6/7 years later and "B" - has all of them applying at the same university. Your personal opinions are not facts, neither are unsubstantiated claims of "The People's Friendship University of Russia". How many applications are from people claiming to be native to get in? How many are duplicate claims? Who revealed this information and why? Wikipedia works from reliable sources, not the anonymous claims of people claiming to be right. Thanks ツ  Jenova  20  (email) 09:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The People's Friendship University of Russia IS A RELIABLE SOURCE! Just call them on and ask them how they got data. You'd be surprised of how they did gather that data! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.105.176 (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's another one casting doubt on your 400 million claim, by quite a large amount. You're not confusing speakers and native speakers are you? Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 14:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

AND HOW IS st. Ignatius HIGH SCHOOL (located in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.) more credible and reputable than the People's Friendship UNIVERSITY of Russia??

Who gives them those statistics? THE CHESHIRE CAT and WHITE RABBIT from Alice in Wonderland???

Boy, are you Brits ignorant, next thing you will believe is that Charles Chaplin is alive!--216.58.105.176 (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello unregistered editor. Regarding your statements above, please ensure that comments are made only about content, not contributors. Comments such as "You are really low-class pal", "Why don't you be a real man" and "Boy, are you Brits ignorant" are not appropriate - see WP:NPA. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * IP user: if you'd like to have a constructive, mature discussion, feel free to begin one at the article's talk page. Please refrain from directing insults towards others anywhere on Wikipedia but especially on my talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 'ere, mate... I 'ad that Frank Putin in the back of me CAB last week... I got about 400 million fares that nite, an' all.... And a warm welcome to all you hard-working, non-Russian-speaking Bulgarians!!

New proposals at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Because I can't think of anywhere else to post this
Wikipedia really needs a Trout Barnstar. Rivertorch (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Rants
A heads-up that someone is ranting about you (and me) at Talk:Vanniyar. Looks like a bit of a grudge match but I can't keep collapsing stuff. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jeez. I don't think that's even been on my watchlist for weeks, if not months. (Even if it is, I barely watch my watchlist anymore!) Ranters will rant, I guess. I think the unfounded sockpuppet allegation is a bit over the top, but I have no time today to pursue the matter. Actually, I'm not even in the mood to warn anyone, so for the moment I'll just ignore them and maybe they'll get bored with talking to themselves. Thanks for letting me know. Rivertorch (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's fairly normal for caste articles that involve me. They've complained to Salvio now - he's used to it and a boomerang will likeky follow. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems as though tending to such articles is tantamount to painting a target on oneself. I just wandered in at random one day from the edit requests page, and look what happened. If you actually choose to work in that area of the wiki on a regular basis, you deserve a round of applause. Maybe a round of drinks, too, but drinks are hard to pour in cyberspace. Rivertorch (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

New Echo feature in the works?
Little Rivertorch want developers offer "well, that was stupid" clickable feature? Interesting. As might be "Bishzilla told you your edit on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was stupid" ? Useful! Hope little devs get cracking!   bishzilla    ROA R R! !     11:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Bishzilla not angry with sarcastic River? Whew! What I actually have found myself wishing for once or twice is a "You're welcome" feature to click when I'm thanked, but I suppose that's one step too far down the social media road. Rivertorch (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Zilla enjoy sarcasm — not specially fond of bland users. If sarcastic River need rest and relaxation, welcome in pocket!   bishzilla    ROA R R! !     14:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Thanks, 'Zilla. A good pocketing sounds heavenly right about now, especially if it's nice and warm. (Like all modern dinos, you are warm-blooded, I'm sure.) But what'll I do if I go stir-crazy and my non-pocketed friends keep forgetting to put the ladder in the pie? Btw, you really should post a warning when you link to that page. (River wipes away tears and picks himelf up from unexpected ROFL episode that could well have spelled doom for his laptop) Rivertorch (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Heheh. 'Zilla appreciate feedback. [Bishzilla is secretly pleased about the laptop doom. Is inspired to consider adding yet more facilities to pocket — ball pool for younger admins, IKEA meatballs restaurant, rollercoaster, psychoanalysis couch. Alluring possibilities!]   bishzilla    ROA R R! !     11:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC).

Hi, Rivertorch. Lisa here.
I apologize for interrupting your talk page, but I don't know what else to do.

I wanted to let you know that I posted the following on the noticeboard. I'm sure they deleted it, and they also want to erase the entire discussion instead of archiving it.They solicited comments about that. I don't mean to imply that you think they are wrong, but I think you deserve better than being unilaterally denied the chance to see my reply.

If it matters, I really am 16. Strangely, that doesn't seem to matter. Someone in the dorm pointed out, "If they don't believe a 16 year-old is in college, why not just upload your student ID?" The way I found out I was banned was trying to post a message asking if I could do that without everyone detonating. I'm still willing to do it, but it would be nice if someone told me why I'm the only one who has to.

'I feel shunned and rejected by angry people for no reason, exactly'' like in high school. '''

All I want is to edit and have a name. 1) so I can save settings, and 2) because I'd like to proudly point to all the improving I have done here.

This is what I just posted at the noticeboard:

This is Lisa

I made my user page for my friends. I even had a message in it for two of them. I didn't make it for a lynch mob of crazy old people. Several here told the crazy ones to leave me alone, that they can't see what is supposed to be wrong with my page or my edits. But even if it was too "suggestive" or whatever, then just tell me to tone the page down. I would have, obviously, then continued correcting grammar mistakes.

Instead, I was banned because it was 'expedient—an easy way to make a discussion go away and shut up the many here who supported my editing—even after I was banned.

The very unusual occurrence of responses posted AFTER the thread was closed make it obvious that it should not have been closed. It should be reopened and this ban discussed.

If it matters, I really am 16. But strangely, that doesn't seem to matter. Someone in the dorm pointed out, "If they don't believe a 16 year-old is in college, why not just upload your student ID?" The way I found out I was banned was trying to post a message asking if I could do that without everyone detonating.

The admin who banned me suggested deleting the entire conversation to hide it, presumably because it would shame wikipedia if people found out I was banned without having done anything wrong and with no reason given. But he didn't delete the conversation because he said he didn't think they could get away with it.

 " Post-mortems of this case will necessarily be missing key pieces of information"

Yes, because you deleted those key pieces of information. Restore them so we can discuss this contested ban. Because without that, this happens:

" Almost every single one of their edits was unconstructive,"

Essentially all of my edits were punctuation and grammar. All were needed and none were reverted. Unfortunately, that fact has been hidden from everyone and now those edits are falsely called "unconstructive" after the fact. ''No one called them that while they were visible. ''

Now another admin thinks they should "disappear" the discussion anyway:

"I don't think we need to let this thread stay visible and open, yeah?"

No, and I hope others agree—like the ones who posted after I was banned, objecting to it.

Even if it is stays closed, why treat this discussion any different than every other discussion here?

I would hope someone who sees the wrongness of this asks that question.

With curious timing 'after' I was banned, a checkuser says it was proper, but omits a reason. Someone pointed that out, but instead of describing the "secret" smoking gun, he got another checkuser admin to back him up, also not describing the vilifying secret. '''This is because there is none, of course, as everybody knows. If I was a sock puppet or something, they'd say so.'''

Another admin here said, "Read what she wrote here; it's obviously trolling."

No, Lukeno, as DES, flyer22, rivertorch, and many others have said, it is obviously NOT trolling.

Banning is like capital punishment, and even if I am executed, the people here watching the spectacle want to talk about it beforehand. Like the secret checkuser information, "she's just trolling" is disingenuous, dishonest, and disgraceful.

I respectfully request that my ban be reversed until someone can come up with a good reason for it, and—at VERY least—this thread be opened again so the people who want to discuss my ban (and have even done so AFTER my ban) can have their opinions considered.

I hope the opinion is "Why don't you just leave her alone and let her edit?"

-Lisa M

'''Again, Rivertorch, I'm sorry if this is bad to put on your user page. Please feel free to delete it ((of course).'''

BTW, someone here set up a "proxy" for me my first week at school. Many here do that, because they don't necessarily want everywhere they go on the net logged by the school. It wasn't to evade the ban, and checkuser can verify that I have always been through this proxy. Being "ban proof" is just a side effect. I can (and I guess I will have to) either edit grammar errors anonymously or make a new account and user page without my picture on it that doesn't say "Lisa" and is acceptable to crazy old people.

If this is how it is outside academia, I don't want to leave. I see why my parents never did, even though they're not students. I thought Wikipedia was "academia", but I was wrong. It's run by crazy adults, like everything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.42.150 (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lisa, of course Wikipedia isn't academia. Where on Earth did you get the idea it was? I'm going to give you some advice that you probably don't want to hear, but I hope you appreciate it someday. My advice is that you simply drop this. Go do something else for a while (weeks, months, years, whatever). Be a student, interact with your friends, and pick freely from the hundreds of millions of other web sites in the world when choosing to create an online presence. Twitter, Tumblr, YouTube . . . there are a lot of places where you can say exactly what you want about yourself and no one is going to question it. You may attract haters, but that can't be helped; they're everywhere. (Theoretically, they're not allowed on Wikipedia, but they tend to ooze in through the cracks and insinuate themselves into the fabric of the project just the same.) But Wikipedia is not a good place to make statements about yourself. It's allowed in certain contexts, but as I told you at ANI it is never allowed when it's disruptive, and minors posting personal information relating to sexual practices and preferences is bound to be disruptive. (Just to be clear, I am not saying one should avoid making references to one's own sexual orientation, which is like nationality or eye color and should be totally fair game to mention in user space.) I haven't reviewed more than a few of your contributions and I'm not about to take the time to do so, but I understand that questions have been raised as to whether some of them were constructive. If any weren't, that's another good reason to walk away. Abandon your account, scramble your password, and just put the whole episode behind you. If you feel like coming back and contributing in the future, that's your prerogative, but I'd wait a good long while if I were you. (And be sure to read WP:CLEANSTART if you do.) If you really are the age you claim to be (btw, I doubt that anyone is interested in seeing your student ID, and I'd strongly recommend against showing it to anyone here), you should be studying and having fun, not wasting your time trying to exonerate yourself after getting blocked on Wikipedia. And it is a waste of time. You're not going to win this battle, and by posting here (or anywhere else on Wikipedia) under your IP, you're breaking the rules by evading your block and and can expect to find your IP blocked as well. Good luck. Now please go live your life. Rivertorch (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Half of my friends agree with you, but I decided to listen to the other half and take this to the Orlando Sentinel.

You're probably the only one interested, and even that's a toss-up, but if you want to follow it, give me your email addr, and I'll cc it to you, along with the guy's reply, if he sends one.

It involves Wikipedia, unfair treatment of a 16 year-old girl, the word "jailbait", and a cover-up. It was a big huge deal whether I'm really 16, but when I want to upload my ID to prove it, suddenly nobody cares. It isn't "news" that wikipedia management is corrupt. But I was finally convinced by others that MAYBE a "local commentary around-town curiosities" kind of column might run it as:


 * "16 year-old college student banned from Wikipedia for being too smart"
 * That's not complete enough for a real news story, but it was a reason given by several admins, and their quotes could be used


 * '''"Wikipedia bans 16 year-old girl for being a pedophile after refusing to look at her school ID"
 * Again, this was a major reason discussed on the noticeboard until it became apparent that I really am me. Then the issue switched from pedophilia to "trolling."

Other factors that might get this published:


 * Wikipedia refused to tell me why I was banned, even after other editors complained that my ban was outrageous


 * Several editors said they saw nothing wrong with my user page, which is the only thing I did at WP besides grammar edits


 * The banning admin suggested deleting the entire discussion about me to hide what they did. He concluded that it wasn't a good idea because they probably couldn't get away with it. Other previously-public discussions about my ban were permanently deleted from the record, including the change histories.

Yeah, nothing will come of this probably, but it's too easy to just put in an email, and if I don't, I'll always wonder what would have happened if I had.
 * admins have quit in protest because of the corruption, lies, and cronyism

I know that actually getting my user name back isn't going to happen. But leaving WP for a year, WTF? I never stopped making punct/grammar fixes. Someone much smarter than me fixed it so I can edit here any time. Like a lot of people who don't want the school logging where they go, I routinely do internet through a proxy. I already made a new account through a proxy in a faraway state with a bland username and a "normal" user page. So editing isn't the issue with me, nor is having a user name. Being treated dismissively, the lies, and someone acknowledging that I was treated unfairly is.

Have a nice life,

Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.44.160 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I tell you that you're violating an important policy by posting while signed out and your response is to do the same thing again. Hello? Okay, you've exhausted the remainder of my assumptions of good faith and are now trying my patience. In reading your reply, I am less persuaded than ever that you are on the level. On the small remaining offchance you are who you claim to be, I can only say I hope you learn sooner rather than later to listen to careful advice when people take the time to give it to you. No one, either at Wikipedia or at the Orlando Sentinel, is the slightest bit interested in what you're saying. Whoever you are, your inflated sense of self-importance doesn't bode well for any future attempts to interact constructively with the Wikipedia community. I expect you'll only have a few minutes to read this before it's permanently deleted, so let's cut to the chase: do not post here again. Rivertorch (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Browning
Thanks for your copy edits to Elizabeth Barrett Browning. I disagree that another link to free texts online is more valuable than a biog. The article already has four links to free texts but six links to free library resources. The works are easily found on any search engine. The Britannia link gives links to her poetry, bibliographies and related websites, plus it gives info not in the WP article. Anna (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to the inclusion of the Britannica article in the external links. In fact, I thought about leaving it be and just adding the other one back in. And if you're confident that the link I re-added is redundant, I'm happy to take your word for it. Ultimately, I would hope that all Wikipedia articles might become so comprehensive that referring our readers to Britannica—a competitor, after all—is completely unnecessary, but I'll be the first to admit we're not there yet! Incidentally, there was quite a spate of vandalism on that article earlier today. I started to request protection but in checking further noticed that there were a number of constructive edits mixed in with the junk. I suppose that, owing to her birthday, E.B.B. is today's class project in a few places. Rivertorch (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And now I see that PC has been inflicted on the article, albeit for only 12 hours. I hope nobody asks to have that renewed. Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't see Britannica as a competitor at all. All that adds to knowledge is good. I would hope that the ELs would send readers off in search of other sources of research. Elizabeth is the Google Doodle for the day so there has been a lot of vandalism and PC is not the way to deal with it. Wrong decision. I'm glad the article was in ok shape before Google linked it, otherwise there tends to be of a mad scramble to whack it into shape. Anna (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time today, so I really only got a chance to look at the first two sections. I wish Google could give us a heads-up before they do that, but I suppose that's asking too much. I like the idea of there being multiple encyclopedias in the world and am glad Britannica still exists, but I think they must think of us as a competitor. After all, they were top dog a decade ago, and we've nearly driven them out of business. Rivertorch (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We've driven them out of business? Sources? A terrible shame if that would happen. I think they are still regarded as top dog, rightly so, in many ways. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">Anna (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I suppose I'm exaggerating (although I did say "nearly driven them out of business"). The common wisdom is that they first ran into trouble in the '90s, due to Encarta specifically and the personal computer in general, and I think that's true up to a point. But it was ten years after Wikipedia's founding that they stopped publishing their print edition, and let's face it: the print edition is still what a lot of us old fogeys (I'm referring here to myself, not you) think of when we think Britannica. I'm glad to know that they survive in digital form, and I hope they find a way to coexist with us and even thrive again, but I'm dubious. They're a business, and I cannot help wondering whether their market is large enough to sustain them over the long haul. Who constitutes their market nowadays, anyway? Maybe they can survive as a niche product for people who are willing and able to pay for premium content, but I suspect that niche is going to keep shrinking as more and more potential Britannica clients settle for the free encyclopedia—and "settle" just might be the wrong word for it if Wikipedia continues not only to expand its breadth and depth of coverage but also to improve its accuracy. It's kind of sad. As a longtime encyclopedia junkie who used to delight in the existence of multiple reference works, I'm not entirely comfortable with our near-monopoly status. Still, I don't think there's much doubt that's what it is. Wikipedia is the Google of encyclopedias in 2014. Incidentally, you're probably aware that Britannica is often denigrated around here. Even though they're a tertiary source, I do consider them generally reliable for sourcing purposes and have used them as a ref on occasion in contexts where a satisfactory secondary source was unavailable, but some Wikipedians don't approve of that at all. Rivertorch (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I haven't much come across the denigration, apart from the myths about WP being pretty much as accurate as the EB. Thanks for all the work you are contributing to WP. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">Anna (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Sportfan5000
I don't know if this user has been a disruptive force, as far you're concerned. Could you have a look at User_talk:Sportfan5000 and see if the issue is widespread. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't run a check, but off the top of my head I don't recall having any recent interactions with that user except at Talk:Matthew Shepard, where he or she has been considerably less disruptive than at least two other users. Unfortunately, I am on deadline with a RL project and am unlikely to have time to look into it further or participate in extended discussions on this topic or any others in the near future. Sorry I can't be of more help. Rivertorch (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Zyklon B Article
Please see the talk page before blindly reverting constructive edits to an article. 24.239.124.140 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding what you wrote at Talk:Zyklon B, your position is perfectly transparent, and I'm not going to dignify it with a substantive response. Continue edit warring at that article and you'll find yourself blocked from editing. Rivertorch (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello! How are you? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBCPirates (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine, thank you. Please consider carefully whether talking to random strangers on the Internet is a good idea. Rivertorch (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Shephard
I have been reading your comments regarding Shephard on your talk page and I must wonder if you have an inherent bias ("the victors write history") -- who are the victors in this case? -- about this case or LGBT-related articles in general -- in marginalizing any dissenting views from the accepted, Hollywood-lubricated version of the circumstances of Shephard's death.

As a gay man myself, I see no reason why consensus is required to include factual information in the lede, which is included in the text below. That is what the lede is for! I am more than willing to open a talk page discussion but I do not accept your heavy-handed action in this case. I am going to check if the article is 1RR, and if not then I am going to restore it. You may think you are a self-appointed censor but you don't have the right to make unreasonable demands of other editors whose opinions you find inconvenient. Your judgment has already been called into question and if necessary I will open a DR. I regret that I cannot assume AGF on your part in this matter. Quis separabit? 13:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, good morning to you, too. Please do what you believe is right, but let's be clear: I don't believe I know you. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time our edits have intersected. If you choose to pursue DR—a process I've never been through in eight years of editing—after finding about 10 percent of an exceptionally complex edit of yours reverted, I wonder whether your failure to AGF and decision to name-call and lob baseless charges on your first contact with me will strengthen your case. I must say it eludes me why you feel the need to tell me you're gay. You've been editing a year longer and have racked up almost five times as many edits as I have. If you think that consensus is optional or that factuality is the sole criterion for including content in the lede, I imagine you must be thoroughly familiar with DR by now. And if you're such a loose cannon that you're striking your own reckless comments within four minutes of making them, I suppose your history at DR can't have been been a happy one. Nonetheless, speaking of assumptions, I will AGF from the get-go. (GF ≠ competency, of course, but c'est la vie.) Now, if you'd care to abandon these ludicrous allegations and pursue this constructively, may I suggest you simply blank what you've written here? Blank my reply as well—just make the whole sorry section disappear—and then do what you should have done in the first place: go to Talk:Matthew Shepard and open a discussion that focuses on content, not contributor. Rivertorch (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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