User talk:Rivertorch/Archive4

 R I V E R T O R C H TALK ARCHIVE LATE 2009 '''This page is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it.'''

AN/I re Phoenix of9
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is here. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Pederasty & Pedagogy in Archaic Greece
I added a Talkback template to the Talk page of the editor who made the deletion, which I hope will invite him/her to participate in the homotalk discussion. Thanks for the input! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. I sense that it was well-intentioned. We shall see. Rivertorch (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the book’s unfortunate title made the other wikieditor have visions of accusations of pedophilia (sp?) being hurled at us and, with all the best intentions, excised the entry from the bibliography. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. That was my sense of it, too. Rivertorch (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agatha Christie: Alzheimer’s Disease
Hi Rivertorch! You may want to participate in the discussion at Agatha Christie: Alzheimer’s Disease. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bisphenol A
It was confuse, the first phrase of that introduction was a reference to a study and that study wasn't representative. Feel free to rewrite it.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Yosemite Infobox Photo
Dude! How'd you do your photo? I can't do mine! It just shows me the link, but no photo! How did you do yours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Podruznik (talk • contribs) 01:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but you asked it at Talk:Yosemite Falls and on your own talk page as well. Are you seeing icons linked to image files rather than the images themselves? If so, I'd guess that either you accidentally set your browser not to display images or you're using some kind of software that is blocking images. With more specific information, I might be able to help you better. Rivertorch (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Falls Just click on that! Thats the link to the article! There is a link to the picture, instead of the picture itself! Ive had this problem before! It only worked once, but it was acompletely different picture! Podruznik (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I think I get it now. You created Phantom Falls and are trying to place an image in the infobox. Wikipedia does not display images hosted on external servers; all images here are uploaded by the users of the various Wikimedia projects. If the image in question — — was taken by you, you may upload it at Wikimedia Commons. If it's not your own image, then it either must be in the public domain or have an appropriate license to be used here. You can find instructions for all of that here.


 * I took the liberty of copyediting Phantom Falls while I was at it. It sounds like a cool place to visit. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Akha image re-add
Hello! As I mentioned in Talk:Human/Archive_29, I would like to re-add the Akha image to the lead section of the Human article when the RfA closes in one or two days. I'm proposing this for three reasons: (1) it is an accurate, high-quality, visually rich depiction of the article's subject matter; (2) the current image violates Wikipedia policy; and (3) even if the Akha one is not ultimately selected, making the change public will surely generate a great deal of discussion, allowing us to make progress and eventually develop a new consensus.

However, I'd rather not add the image personally, because I added it last time. Although I know you don't support the image (or any currently suggested image necessarily), if you agree with me either that the image is an improvement upon the plaque, or that making the change is the best step for jumpstarting productive discussion again (if you have an alternative suggestion for a good next step, I would of course love to hear it!), I would greatly appreciate if you would make the change so as to avoid my giving the impression of this being a one-man campaign or something. If not, I'll ask someone else. I just want to minimize the possibility of a counterproductive revert war, or even the impression of unilateral action, and your 'moderate/fence-hugging' stance on the image obviously makes you ideal for preventing an 'us-vs.-them' atmosphere forming. -Silence (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No way am I going to become cannon fodder for something I'm hugging the fence on. Whoever does it will be ending a rather long period of tranquility, so it damn well should be someone who is well on the other side of the fence. It will be contentious and it may get nasty. If you're committed to changing the image in spite of that, then you should lead the charge, not ask someone else to do it for you.


 * Fact is, the consensus doesn't seem to have changed, and arguably you will be editing against consensus. (You've questioned whether there's consensus for keeping the issue, but no one has echoed you on that.) On point (1) above, you're beating a dead horse. On point (3), I doubt it, but you may be right. If you stick your own neck out, I'll support the things you say that I agree with; that's all I can promise. On point (2), if you're really convinced that it violates policy, then consider two things:


 * 1) An image that violates policy should be removed—period—regardless of whether there's agreement  on another image to replace it. I.e., the violation should be corrected first and other considerations are secondary.
 * 2) If you're convinced that the image violates policy but you can't cultivate consensus on the article talk page, there's probably a policy talk page or noticeboard that you should take it to. Rivertorch (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My goal is to lessen potential controversy by emphasizing that this is a collaboration and brainstorming session, rather than some sort of battle between opposing sides. If you aren't interested or don't think my idea would help in that respect, that's fine.
 * My goal, in other words, is precisely to mitigate the impression of this as the first salvo in a skirmish (or as you describe it, leading "the charge"). The point of the change is to motivate reasoned discussion. If the same person makes both changes, I worry that some users (as Lulu has already demonstrated) will respond by criticizing the person rather than criticizing the idea.
 * "(You've questioned whether there's consensus for keeping the issue, but no one has echoed you on that.)" - Nor has anyone contradicted me on that, even as I have put forth numerous arguments and pieces of evidence supporting the lack of consensus for either side. So either everyone tacitly agrees, or some people disagree but have no arguments or evidence to support their opinion (or just don't care enough to do so). Either way, not terribly impressive.
 * "I'll support the things you say that I agree with; that's all I can promise." - That's perfectly fair. I was simply hoping to make the change in a way that would maximize our odds of a productive and non-rancorous discussion. The most progress is made when moderates, not extremists like little old me, lead. :) The proper way to correct policy changes is simply to fix/remove them from the article, not usually to go to the general policy page. I have only waited a month before re-making the change out of my great respect for other editors' opinions, wanting to hear if anyone could actually justify the plaque's use, e.g., by citing policy/precedent. -Silence (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it will make any difference who makes the change; whoever it is will be reverted and likely jumped on and pummeled, and with some reason, since they essentially will be editing against consensus. Lack of contradiction is not indicative that you're right about where consensus lies, I think. If nobody bothered to speak up in agreement with you, you might want to take that as tacit disagreement.


 * The only way I can think of to mitigate contention here, imo, is to shift consensus before making the change. You have been unable to do that by presenting your views on the talk page. The RFC sparked little input and did nothing to shift consensus. My announcement that my opinion had shifted failed to have any effect. Given all that, I cannot see how employing the trusty (or shopworn, as you like it) BOLD method is going to work.


 * You may be right about the "proper way" to do these things; you have seniority and a mop, so your experience must be considerable. My sense of it, though, is that the proper way isn't always the same but varies depending on context. In this context, it seems to me that your most urgent argument involves policy violation, and soliciting input from editors who concentrate on that area might be a worthwhile approach. If you run it up the pole there and no one salutes, then you'll be no worse off than you are now, but you just might find others who agree with you and will come back to Talk:Human and say so, thus shifting consensus. Worth a try, surely, but you could always save it for if everything else fails. Rivertorch (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who reverts the edit solely because it is 'against consensus' will be directly violating Wikipedia policy, per Consensus: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action" (emphasis added). This would be so even if these hypothetical reverters were not factually inaccurate in their claim of consensus support, as the evidence indicates.
 * My personal expectation is similar to yours, but with a more long-term view. I expect several reverts, followed by a 'cease-fire' and a few days of discussion; then, assuming that the plaque's alleged policy violations are not rebutted, the replacement image (either Akha or a new suggestion) will be restored, and this time there will be fewer reverts, as new editors continue to join the discussion upon noticing the change. This will continue until a third option, or one of the two current ones, gains broader support than the half-dozen editors currently dominating the discussion. This is entirely normal and expected for an editorial dispute, and it's a sign of Wikipedia's health that it is open to such discussion and brainstorming. Only high-quality FAs, articles on the main page, etc. can have (short-term) reason to suppress change. -Silence (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I suspect you're placing too much reliance on the letter of various policies, which are interpreted and implemented inconsistently depending on specific circumstances, I defer to your experience. What happened to Martin, anyway? Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Martin's still active, I assume he just hasn't commented lately because there are no new points to address. As for my experience, that shouldn't be a factor. Experienced users can be wrong just as easily as inexperienced ones, and after a certain period things basically level out. Adminship is in effect a custodial duty, and admins shouldn't be treated as any more authoritative than an ordinary user on matters like these. If my points are sound, agree with me for that reason; if they aren't, criticize them just as freely as if I were a 'peon.' :) Lulu and I, for example, have been on Wikipedia for precisely the same length of time, even though we radically disagree on the plaque. It's not about the auctoritas of the editors, any more than it's about the quantity of them; it's about the strength of argument. Simply citing WP:IAR or saying 'it's about the spirit, not the letter of policies' is grossly inadequate, unless you can provide explicit reasons why ignoring the rules in this case improves our educational/encyclopedic value, or explicit evidence that the spirit of policy is violated by adhering to its obvious, and consistently repeated, letter in this case. I am the last one to endorse a "one size fits all" approach to articles, but I am also not one to arbitrarily ignore core policies willy-nilly. -Silence (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Yes, well, I don't know. Many of us cite policies and guidelines when it suits us and disregard them when it doesn't. Not necessarily consciously—it just happens. I tend to find an argument more persuasive when its logic can stand on its own without reference to one or more rules. Maybe that's because when it comes to complex issues a case can often be made either way, depending on what rule (or even which part of a given rule) gets cited. When that happens, it can end up with wikilawyering on both sides and disputes over what rule trumps what other rule, and so on. In other words, quite a lot of what we do here is more subjective than some of us are comfortable admitting.

Now, you talk about "explicit evidence" and the letter of the policy, but what you're not acknowledging is that not everyone sees it as explicit as you do, and not everyone reads the same words of the same policy the same way as you do. Now, it could be that you're 100% correct and those who disagree with you about the image have their heads in the sand, but it could also be that you're just seeing the same things from a different perspective. Thing is, even if they do have their heads in the sand, their opinion still carries as much weight as yours at a given talk page. That's one of the unhappy things about this project, in my experience. Consensus is an uneasy thing, and the side that carries the day in any content dispute will usually be either the side with the most people or the side with the most trusted, influential, or even powerful people. It should always be the side with the stronger argument, but it doesn't always work out that way. No matter how impeccable one's logic, no matter how much it seems to fit in with the letter of the rules, sometimes one just can't persuade others. There's disagreement, there are cogent arguments, then there's a collective yawn and averting of eyes, and that's it. At that point, what are the options? If it's hugely important to me, I seek to bring it to the attention of more people, but generally I just move on to some other area. Otherwise, it's quixotic and hopeless and a terrible waste of energy and it just gets tiresome a distracting to others, who then get pissed off.

As for adminship, I know what it means in theory and I know what it means in reality, and the two don't always intersect. I generally assume of admins a certain level of knowledge about the project—how it's structured and supposed to function—that I don't assume of others. Sometimes that assumption is misplaced, of course, but mostly it isn't. Rivertorch (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I spend so much time focusing on policy is because there really is no other completely universal 'common ground' for people on Wikipedia to appeal to in discussion, when their intuitions and common sense lead them to divergent conclusions. The great value of policy is that it's a codification which all Wikipedians (if only tacitly) sign up for. There is no equivalent 'rulebook' or 'social contract' of common sense, so there's no real way to mediate disputes where neither party is persuaded by the other's logic, except by checking which user's arguments are more in line with policy.
 * Obviously, this isn't possible in cases where policy itself is ambiguous on an issue. But we seem not to be in a situation where "a case can... be made either way" using different rule pages. I say this because I have yet to see any actual policies, guidelines, or precedents cited by anyone showing that the plaque is permissible. Every rule seems to be on a single side of the issue. I don't like to have to cite policy &mdash; I'd much prefer to persuade everyone without resorting to ridiculous acronyms and Wiki-buzzwords &mdash; but when everything else fails and communication breaks down, policy is the one steadfast mediator of disputes like these.
 * "it could also be that you're just seeing the same things from a different perspective" - That's certainly possible. One of the main reasons I've cited policy so often is so that I could hear how the other side can justify their position in light of such policies. I am extremely eager to hear how they interpret policy differently. However, I have been disappointed so far; no rebuttal has been made, either of any policy or any interpretation of mine. Honestly, right now it doesn't seem like people have different 'interpretations' of policy; it sounds more like people don't care about certain policies, or aren't entirely familiar with them (particularly Consensus, which people have repeatedly cited to make arguments which that policy page explicitly criticizes and dismisses), and really have no particular view on how policy relates to the issue at hand, other than that it shouldn't be opposed to any image they happen to like. I very much hope that I will be proven wrong over the course of the Talk:Human discussion.
 * "their opinion still carries as much weight as yours at a given talk page" - Happily, that's not quite true. Yes, each person's "opinion" has equal weight &mdash; but that's because each person's opinion, mine included, has zero weight (at least in theory). Only good reasons have weight, and reasons are equally strong regardless of quantity. Quoting WP:CON again: "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." -Silence (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, I am heartened by the fact that you've been here so long and are still able to maintain a significant degree of idealism. I hope you will hang onto that regardless of how this all goes down.


 * One substantive comment only. You wrote, "I say this because I have yet to see any actual policies, guidelines, or precedents cited by anyone showing that the plaque is permissible." The flip side of that coin is that others have yet to see any actual policies or guidelines cited by you showing that the plaque is impermissible. (I leave out precedents because I think it's hard for such precedents to show impermissibility.) Yes, you've cited policies and guidelines that you think show it to be impermissible, but this relies upon your reading of said policies and guidelines. Your reading may well be correct, but it's not quite staring us in the face; there's no smoking gun. Do you see what I mean? Put it another way: suppose you show the impermissibility to the best of your ability but others aren't persuaded? If you can't get one of the adamant opponents of trying a different image to engage you in a discussion of points of policy, then it seems to me that you're at an impasse. Rivertorch (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The only users who can stay productive on Wikipedia in the long run are the idealists, since they're the only ones who think their work has any point. :)
 * As for policies showing that the plaque is impermissible: Wikipedia is not censored. Nobody has successfully disputed this policy's application here, and only two users have even made the slightest attempt to do so &mdash; yourself, primarily using the argument "It's original research to conclude that an image is censoring anything" (which would require that we never enforce the WP:NOTCENSORED policy), and Ttiotsw, primarily using the argument "It's censorship to remove censorship from Wikipedia" (which would again require that we never enforce the policy, and also that we never remove anything from any article). Even if these arguments weren't fairly absurd, their proponents have both subsequently shifted on the issue, and not one person has risen to take their place. Nobody, on any side of the issue, in the entire history of discussions on Talk:Human, has disputed my basic interpretation of Wikipedia's non-censorship policy. Per your suggestion, I also raised these questions on the policy page Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, and again had my proposed interpretation and implementation of policy confirmed.
 * So, that only leaves the question of whether the plaque is censoring the subject matter of Human; since all editors agree that it is intended to depict humans (indeed, that's been one of the primary arguments for the plaque! if it doesn't in any sense show 'humans', and hence isn't censored, it consequently becomes irrelevant to the Human article), and since nobody (neither editors nor other reliable sources) has refuted Sagan's claim that a human anatomical feature was removed from the drawing out of deference to potential "puritanical" attitudes or beliefs, the policy's application becomes self-evident. Sagan's quote is the smoking gun; without it, I would indeed be forced to merely infer that the image is deliberately censoring the vulva (as opposed to the possibility, say, that the vulva was accidentally left out, or left out for purely non-moralistic reasons), but with that bit of evidence, Wikipedia becomes a factually undeniable participant in explicit and willful censorship (even if that's not Wikipedia's (or for that matter NASA's) primary reason for utilizing the censored image). -Silence (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, incidentally: Since I've followed your advice and waited before making the image switch (though that's partly because debate picked up again on the talk pages; if it dies out again, I make no promises), I was wondering if you'd consider employing the compromise we discussed earlier &mdash; rather than replacing the image with my proposed image, would you be willing to remove the policy-violating image and replace it with no image, on a temporary basis until a user can clearly demonstrate that it does not violate any policies? Perhaps this would satisfy your "fence-hugging" position a bit more than actually adding a new image to the page, which might indeed misleadingly suggest that you favor the image. -Silence (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. Do you know the old Steely Dan Song, "Dirty Work"? (Minus certain connotations, of course.) If I weren't amused, I'd probably be offended. It is definitely the former, rest assured, but I think it's probably best if you refrain from this type of request. Truly, I'm not sure what you're so hesitant about, anyway. If you're so convinced there's a policy violation, you should either make the edit yourself or take it to a policy talk page for a second opinion. If I blanked the image, I'd get reverted just as fast as you would, anyway.


 * I'd like to see someone else credibly allege a probable policy violation before I'd even consider taking such a step. (And I don't mean an IP or a redlinked newbie or Martin. I mean an established editor who hasn't objected to the plaque before.) I could take it to a policy talk page myself, I suppose, and if you don't, maybe I will. But I'm not inclined to stick my neck out and risk becoming Wikipedia's latest pariah awithout some clearer evidence that I am justified. Rivertorch (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm never going to remove the image and replace it with no image (though I might revert to such a version if really necessary). That was your preferred suggestion, so if you think it would help the quality of discussion or that it's a good temporary measure until we decide which image to use, feel free to give it a shot. If I make a change, it will only be to replace the plaque with a photograph, since I would rather not bother to make an edit that will necessary be reverted eventually (to keep the page in line with taxobox convention). But I can see why you might feel differently, and with good reason.
 * And, as I just said, I already did bring it to a policy talk page (when you suggested it), and met only with agreement. I've done everything you've suggested, and you seem to agree that most of the solid arguments/reasons favor not using the plaque. Martin Hogbin has also repeatedly alleged the same policy violation(s) I have, though this step isn't even necessary since  it only takes one user who "credibly alleges a probable policy violation" to justify fixing the violation . Only if my allegation were not credible would other opinions be needed. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Wikipedia's official policy states that it is only the strength of argument, and not the number of users, that is relevant; if you disagree with this policy, bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Consensus and get it changed, or make a separate online encyclopedia which does as a matter of policy disregard strength of argument or subordinate it to strength of numbers. This isn't meant to be facetious; I honestly recommend giving that experiment a try if you think it's a better way, as it might very well be interesting and successful. It just ain't Wikipedia; we don't vote, we discuss. -Silence (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I just provided all the evidence you need above: Evidence that there is a policy against censorship, and evidence that the plaque is censored (unless you think Sagan is outright lying, which I think we should not leap to conclude unless reliable sources say so). It is an entirely straightforward matter with those two facts established, especially when the only arguments for Human being an exception to all the rules are soliloquies along the lines of "but humans are special and unique and amazing!! yaaay spaaaaaace~", as though that had any particular bearing on anti-censorship policy. I came to you for help because you expressed an interest in resolving the matter, because you disagreed with me on a number of issues (hence if I suggested something you wouldn't just be a yesman), and because I did not want to do anything unilaterally. I figure if the two of us can agree on anything, that's a pretty big accomplishment and good reason to seriously consider the option in question. :) But if you care more about your reputation than about the usefulness and encyclopedic quality of an article (or if you disagree that Wikipedia's policies have anything important to do with its articles' content), then obviously there are other, less controversial matters you have more reason to concern yourself with. The only reason I've discussed this matter with you is because I have assumed, and continue to assume, that this is not the arrangement of your priorities &mdash; you care more about the encyclopedia than about politics. -Silence (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Section break
Silence, for starters, my apologies on missing that you'd already been to policy talk with it. You mentioned it in the midst of a long paragraph which I apparently only skimmed the middle of.

The upshot of that thread was that Cybercobra suggested removing it from the lede but moving it elsewhere in the article. I fail to understand that logic: if the image constitutes censorship and censorship is always forbidden, then it's unacceptable to have it anywhere in the article, not just the lede. (By that argument, the only places it belongs is at Pioneer spacecraft-related articles and maybe at Censorship itself.)

I don't get why you would never remove the image and replace it with no image. That wouldn't violate any policy, would it? I'm really having trouble understanding your reasoning here. Wouldn't fixing a policy violation imperfectly be better than not fixing it at all?

Please remember that you and I are approaching this from vastly different angles. Your negative feelings toward the image in its current context are obviously quite vehement; my feelings aren't nearly as negative. You see a missing line and apparently think "erasure of women"; I see it and think "Well, that was dumb. Silly NASA!" Given that I don't feel that strongly about it, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise to you that I'm less than gung-ho to fire the first volley in what is likely to be an unpleasant skirmish at least and perhaps a long and wearying battle.

Your musing about my priorities is unwarranted and unhelpful. Fact is, I do care more about my reputation than about any quality of any article. While I'd like to think that my reputation includes a tendency to assume good faith and to work towards fostering compromise and harmony, I assure you it also includes a willingness to stand up for difficult truths and a strong penchant for emphasizing principle over popularity. I also try to be savvy enough to pick my battles wisely, and I'm unlikely to fight tooth and nail for something I don't feel passionate about. If that's "politics," so be it. I call it common sense. Fact is, this encyclopedia, for all its profusion of articles, is still in its infancy. I'd like to do some more good work here in various areas, and if I'm going to burn out or fall on my sword over something, it most definitely will be over something I care about deeply.

You can spout dogma about strength of argument vs. number of users till you're blue in the face, for all the good it does; I'm aware of that doctrine, I agree with it in theory, and I've already said I admired your idealism. Problem is, it doesn't always hold true in practice. If it did, the flagged revisions fiasco-to-be would have been left to rot on the drawing board. There are any number of other examples—it happens frequently with AFDs and ANI reports and in innumerable fights over content. There are several reasons for it, but at its root the problem is that strength of argument is subjective. I keep coming back to variations on that theme, and I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record but I think it's fundamental to understanding the implications of the discussion at Talk:Human. Sometimes the majority is wrong and sometimes they're right, but if a sufficient number of editors—in some cases, influential editors—cannot be bothered to sit up and take notice and speak out, then it doesn't matter how strong the argument is: it loses anyway. I am not suggesting that Wikipedia is so dysfunctional that this happens most of the time, but it does happen more than it should, and it may be happening now at Talk:Human. I remain unhappy about the lack of substantive discussion to fairly assess the strength of your argument but am doubtful there's anything I can do to change the situation. And that, my friend, leaves the ball in your court.

Now let's sweep all this away and get back to something constructive. My position is as follows:
 * I have no intention of removing or changing the image, and further suggestions to the contrary will be met with either stony silence or maniacal laughter—my choice.
 * If someone else, acting in good faith for reasons of policy, removes or changes the image, I will support their edit on a trial basis (not necessarily permanently, reserving judgment until I see how it goes and what further constructive discussions ensue).
 * I will defend any such editor to the best of my ability at Talk:Human, and elsewhere if necessary, for attempting to enforce policy and improve the article.

Please be aware that the above is representative of how I'd be inclined to act in any instance of a content dispute with which I am highly familiar but which I don't feel strongly about and don't believe involves an indisputable policy violation.

One more thing: Cybercobra mentioned the idea of editing the image but dismissed it as problematic. I agree it's problematic, but I wonder if it might be feasible after all. Since it already has been tampered with (lines removed and so on) by Wikipedians, I can't think offhand of any good reason why it couldn't be tampered with again. At any rate, I don't think this idea has been proposed at Talk:Human recently. I'm going to think on it some and perhaps bring it up there tomorrow. What do you think? Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cybercobra suggested that we might use the plaque somewhere in the article, because it's so iconic. I can understand the reasoning behind this: The plaque censors human biology, so is inappropriate in the lead section. But if we moved to a culture/technology section, and used it to talk only about, say, space flight, its use could be justified since it then wouldn't be censoring our main subject matter. (This is basically the same reason we're permitted to use the plaque on the Pioneer plaque article: Because it doesn't censor that article's content.) However, this isn't really an important point, and the article is already so packed with images that I don't see much use in trying to fit the plaque into a culture section; it's more useful to actually depict things like spaceships than to depict a digital tracing of a plaque.
 * Having no lead image violates no policy, but it does disrupt the article for the sake of editorial (i.e., behind-the-scenes) concerns, in a way that simply replacing the image with a different one does not. As a matter of principle, I prefer to avoid such disruption when it doesn't enhance the article's contents. Obviously removing the image would be better than having a policy-violating image, but if I'm going to make the change at all I'll simultaneously put an alternative image up.
 * "You see a missing line and apparently think "erasure of women"" - Not quite. However, in fairness, the vulva is, in fact, the only visible anatomical feature which defines human females as being females. It is therefore a little bizarre to include nude images of a human male and female, while censoring the only detail which would actually make the female female.
 * "a long and wearying battle" - This hasn't already been a long and wearying battle? Read the last few years of archived debates. Not doing anything won't solve anything &mdash; indeed, it can't solve anything. The sooner we start actually changing the image, the sooner the whole mess will be over with; we have no control over how contentious the debate will be, but we do have control over how quickly it will be resolved &mdash; because we can see that it comes to a head now, rather than months from now after yet more rehashing of the same old points, while still failing to seriously consider any alternative. It's like getting a flu shot; putting it off won't make it better.
 * "it doesn't always hold true in practice" - I never said it did. No policy is a description of exactly what happens in talk pages. Policies are at most prescriptions of what should happen in talk pages. If everyone already followed every policy perfectly, then there'd be no point at all in my citing policy, either to you or to anyone in Talk:Human. (Also, strength of argument is not 'subjective' per se, any more than a scientific fact is subjective; our understandings of strength are obviously subjective, but are still mediated by shared standards, expectations, etc. A better term, then, would be 'intersubjective'.)
 * Anyway. The problem with restoring "the line" is that it misleads users about the actual contents of the Pioneer plaque. It's a historical fact that the plaque was sent into space censored, and ideally we shouldn't obscure that fact any more than we should obscure an anatomical fact (although obviously the latter fact is more important and directly relevant to Human than the former). However, you're 100% welcome to propose and discuss that option; if nothing else, perhaps it could be a 'transitional' image to use until we can agree upon an entirely new one. -Silence (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoth Silence: "the vulva is, in fact, the only visible anatomical feature which defines human females as being females. It is therefore a little bizarre to include nude images of a human male and female, while censoring the only detail which would actually make the female female."
 * Sez me: This is getting sillier by the minute. Did you notice that Plaque Woman has sizable breasts and wide hips? If the figures were of equal height and both bald and the male figure's genitals erased, would you have any trouble identifying which one's which? You're running the risk of reducing "woman" to "vulva", which not only is utter bullshit but also, ironically enough, carries a whiff of misogyny (to my nose, anyway).
 * Your nitpicking over my use of "subjective" is also pretty silly. I did not mean anything other than I said, and by "subjective" I meant the basic definition: "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions". Obviously, I wasn't referring to the argument itself, which doesn't exist in a vacuum, but to the the way it's received by others. That is subjective, and intersubjectivity is really beside the point.
 * Restoring the line would not mislead users about the plaque if it were clearly labeled as being based on or adapted from the image on the plaque. Conceivably, it might not even need to be labeled at all. I'll try to work up something to say on the talk page tonight. (Don't hold your breath. I've got about 12 windows open at the moment, only one of them in WP, and I'm likely to remain busy all day.)
 * Frankly, I'm starting to get thoroughly tired of this discussion. One of the points implicit in my previous post was that this campaign to change the image is basically your baby, and you have way more enthusiasm and patience for it than I do. Rivertorch (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Did you notice that Plaque Woman has sizable breasts and wide hips?" - Doesn't define a human as female. Many men I know have both 'sizable breasts' and 'wide hips' &mdash; for some reason, the two seem to be correlated in men as well as women. :) My original reply to you actually went into detail talking about the difference between primary sex characteristics (which includes the genitalia and various internal organs) and secondary sex characteristics, but I removed a few paragraphs from my above post, per your earlier good advice to stay concise.
 * Read what I wrote above again. I never said that readers wouldn't interpret the figure on the right as female. All I said is that the figure is, biologically speaking, not a female, because breasts, long hair, wide hips, etc. do not make anyone (or anything!) female, even when there is a correlation. In fact, the fact that we so easily interpret the left doodle as female partly reflects our own cultural biases, since we come from a culture where long hair happens to be associated with femininity; this is not the case in many other cultures. (On the other hand, a secondary sex characteristic which biologically, if not culturally, is universally masculine among humans &mdash; facial hair in males &mdash; is conspicuously absent from our picture, again in accordance with our cultural biases.)
 * "You're running the risk of reducing "woman" to "vulva"" - And now who's being silly? :) We never discussed womanhood. Again: Read what I actually said. "the vulva is, in fact, the only visible anatomical feature which defines human females as being females " (emphasis added). What I said is simply a fact. It is (in part) the definition of the word 'female.' Unlike Lulu and other users on Talk:Human, I have no interest in expressing my personal opinion on how 'important' various anatomical features are or are not. That's not Wikipedia's job to determine here. I simply made a factual observation: We are going to the trouble of showing nude male and female humans (presumably for the sake of educating readers about what distinguishes males and females &mdash; else we wouldn't bother depicting both sexes), while simultaneously censoring the single, solitary visible feature which makes the one individual a male and the other a female.
 * "Restoring the line would not mislead users about the plaque if it were clearly labeled as being based on or adapted from the image on the plaque." - A good point. This would indeed mitigate both the anatomical and the historical problems. I would support this change provisionally, although not as a permanent solution. -Silence (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do I have the urge to scream? (Rhetorical question only. No reply needed.) Off to Talk:Human now to stir up trouble. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agatha Christie
Burning the midnight oil? I love that you stay on top of the Agatha Christie article. I’m working my way through her “oeuvre” in chronological order and just read my first Christie disappointment: The Big Four. But, it hasn’t changed my opinion of her! — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Positively drowning in the midnight oil. I don't want to disillusion you, but I'm actually not a huge A.C. fan, despite having read most of her novels and several of her story collections. Her work is wildly uneven—a few are masterpieces, among the best mysteries ever and pretty decent writing to boot, but all too often they're hackneyed as hell with wildly improbable plots and mind-numbingly vapid, repetitive dialogue. I tend to prefer her early work (e.g., The Secret Adversary, The Secret of Chimneys) for its atmosphere and style, although an occasional later one has impressed me (The Moving Finger comes to mind). I do credit her for helping introduce me to the genre back in the day (I think I went directly from the Hardy Boys to Hercule Poirot) but sometimes think that, maybe in part because of the quantity of her ouput, she unfairly overshadows some of her less prolific peers. Rivertorch (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I read many of them as a teenager in high school, so long ago … but recently read a wonderful biography/literary criticism of her by Laura Thompson. I had heard Ms. Thompson in an interview on CBC Radio. The interview was terrific, so I ordered the book and found it a great read. Then I decided to read all of Christie’s works, in order, starting with the first one. I figured that it had been so long since I had read them that, unless I had recently seen any of them on the Poirot or Marple television series, I would not remember the plots and their twists. So far, with the exception of Ackroyd, this has worked out fine. And, as regards Ackroyd, knowing who the murderer was simply made it like Columbo wherein one knows whodunit, but one one doesn’t know how the detective is going to catch the culprit, sort of like a howcatchem. I thought the first several were great, with the exception of the collected Poirot stories, Poirot Investigates, which were awful. I especially liked the espionage thrillers, Adversary and Chimneys, as you well mention. So, Christie can indeed write well in that vein. But, what the h*ll happened with The Big Four?! It reads like a work that was orignally a bunch of short stories that got stitched together to form a novel. It reads like a very poor rip-off of Sherlock Holmes. It doesn’t even have the cinematic qualities that Adversary and Chimneys had wherein one could see it unrolling as a film in one’s imagination. The final annoyance for me was the feeling with the last page that it had been written before Ackroyd, but published after. Why do I say this? In Ackroyd, we find Poirot retired and growing vegetable marrows (something that I’ve never had the pleasure of seeing here in North America, let alone eating). Yet, at the end of Four, he says it is his intention to retire and grow marrows! Now, since I had found her first short story collection, Poirot Investigates, to be so disappointing, and since I found Four to read like a collection of short stories stitched together into a novel with the overarching theme of the Big Four, it should be no surprise to me that, given its short story feel, it too was a disappointment. However, I did not expect to begin to be disappointed until I reached her 1960s works, onwards. Anyway, your ennui must be setting in by now, so I shall stop spewing my rant all over your nice, pretty talk page. Now that I’ve read the thing, I’ll take a look at the “novel’s” wikiarticle page, and start working on it sometime this weekend. Ciao for now! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Spew away. Real life has been a drag these past couple days, so this is a welcome escape. You may find other continuity problems as you go through the Christie oeuvre, since not everything was published in the order it was written and she apparently didn't go back and edit out the anachronisms. (To be fair, such changes weren't quite so easy to make in those days as they are now.) I get all the story collections mixed up, so I'm not sure which one was Poirot Investigates. I reread Christie (and others) on occasion, usually when I'm in need of the literary equivalent of "comfort food"—cozy setting, cast of colorful characters (preferably including at least one or two I like), preferably some eeriness and suspense, and so forth. And I rarely remember whodunit. Sometimes I think I remember but am wrong.


 * Also wildly uneven, but at her best the equal of Christie: Margery Allingham. Much more consistent than Christie and arguably the best of that era (they overlapped for at least four decades): Ngaio Marsh, whose occasional mildly homophobic passage I forgive only because I think her detective and his assistant are really secretly an item. Josephine Tey, who entered the scene a little later, might have become the best of them if she'd lived long enough to write more books. Dorothy Eden for can't-put-it-down gripping qualities and heart-pounding suspense, although one has to wade through a cheesy romance trapping now and again. Those are five that I go back to from time to time. All of their articles could stand some work, if I ever get the time, motivation, and stamina. Any other authors you like from that era?


 * Isn't a marrow sort of like (ahem) a big zucchini? Rivertorch (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow!! You are well-read in the mystery genre! I, on the other hand, am not. I did read all the Sherlock Holmeses as a kid. And, I am about to embark upon The Old Man in the Corner by Baroness Orczy. I have to be honest, I tend to read mainly nonfiction and when I do read fiction it tends towards re-acquainting myself with Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner, etc. I cannot seem to leave the past. However, I never miss a good mystery adaptation on television/DVD. Thank G-d for the BBC, PBS, and the old A&E! That having been said, I take your recommendations to heart. I think I would like to start with Ngaio Marsh … — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I've never read any Orczy. In fact, my entire knowledge of the Scarlet Pimpernel comes from one episode of Black Adder. Let me know if you like it. Yes, I forgot about Holmes; of course I read all of those. (Have you seen Dr. Bell and Mr. Doyle, btw? We don't seem to have an article on that.) If you're interested in Ngaio Marsh and don't insist on going chronologically, I recommend starting with A Surfeit of Lampreys (U.S. title Death of a Peer). Agree re TV adaptations in general, but beware the Marsh adaptations, which are terribly disappointing. Email me if you want to compare notes in more detail, since we're probably venturing a little beyond the intended scope of user talk. Rivertorch (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot find an email link on either of your user or talk page. Hmmm … — SpikeToronto (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's in the usual place: far left, under "toolbox", "E-mail this user". Or just click here. Rivertorch (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I always forget about that menu way over there! — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agatha Christie Photo
Hey Rivertorch. We’re about to lose the plaque photo of Agatha Christie due to one person’s interpretation of copyright. If you want to weigh in on the straw poll vote, you need to log-in to Wikicommons and vote on. Deletion discussions take longer to resolve over there, so be patient. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I’ll respond to your lovely message above sometime tomorrow. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk)


 * I'll monitor how it's going, but image copyrights aren't exactly my bailiwick. I find many of the deletion arguments I've seen around here to be incomprehensible and absurd, so either I am blessedly ignorant of the legal details or the deletionists are insane. Either way, I'd prefer to keep my distance. Rivertorch (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * “The deletionists are insane” is, I think, the correct statement. I find that the exclusionists seem to prevail in most areas of Wikipedia. Sorry I’ve yet to respond to your earlier post above. — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Phantom Falls
Podruznik, your most recent changes to Phantom Falls are completely unacceptable. I warned you before and you failed to respond. For the last time, you must follow Wikipedia style guidelines or else explain why not, and you must not revert other editors' good-faith improvements without explaining yourself. Because you have contributed the beginnings of useful content to the encyclopedia, I am cutting you considerable slack, but the next time you revert to an unencyclopedic version of the article with no explanation given, I will take action to ensure that it cannot happen again. Let's not step over that line, okay? You'll get along fine here if you observe some basic house rules, and that includes communicating substantively and respectfully with your fellow editors. We have gone out of our way to be helpful to you, and you are seriously disrespecting us in return. Rivertorch (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay! Can we leave some of the original? The word via sounds weird! Also, I was worried that it would make my picture dissapear, because someone edited one of my articles, and it made my picture dissapear! 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Podruznik (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It may sound weird, but via is the only appropriate preposition I can think of for the context. With works in casual conversation but is too imprecise for an encyclopedia article. Your preferred wording essentially says "the bottom can be reached with a hike", which doesn't make sense; it's like saying "Los Angeles can be reached with a freeway". The revised wording with via says "the bottom can be reached by means of a hike," which makes perfect sense.


 * You need to accept that at Wikipedia there is no such thing as your articles and your pictures. Content you contribute is no longer yours. If you don't want to see it changed in various ways or sometimes even deleted, it would be better not to contribute it in the first place. Rivertorch (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude! Fuck off! I only chnged one word! Via sounds weird! What's your problem? And they are my aricles! I created them! I own the copyright rights for them! And they deffinately are my pictures! Did you take them? No! You didn't! I did! If there is no such thing as my article, then that means I own your talk page too, so I can respond to people on it!

Are you a Communist or something? Podruznik (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, RFC time. Your choice. Rivertorch (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Crocus
Dear Rivertorch,

As a hobby botanist I have a lot of Crocus species in my garden, including several autumn-flowering ones. I have also put several pictures of them on Commons, including one of the rare Crocus matthewii.

The classification proposed by B. Matthew, the guru of crocusses,I have implemented on 14 October 2009, 20:16, although not ideal, is the one which is generally accepted, and books and other websites are referring to it.

I find the changes made by User:SiGarb premature since they are based on recent (March 2009) phylogenic work, which have to be confirmed by "further studies" to consider a new hierachical system of classification. Futhermore the changes made by User:SiGarb are not user-friendly (strikethrough words, paragraph in parentheses) and are even source of confusion, because not in full accordance with the text he has added.

As I did in fr:Crocus I have retained B. Matthew's classification as such. I have added a paragraph with the results of the recent (March 2009) phylogenic work, waiting for the results of "further studies" before changing accepted B. Matthew's classification.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 17:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Réginald, first of all, mea culpa. I hadn't noticed that your signature is different from your username, so it appears that I notified you about your own thread! To be fair, this mistake might be made by anyone who doesn't think to mouseover your signature, but I compounded it by not checking the diffs carefully at the history page, thus attributing SiGarb's edit to you. What I'm going to do now is strikethru my comment on your talk page (feel free to delete it if you prefer) and move it to User_talk:SiGarb, which is where I meant it to go in the first place; I'll also update Talk:Crocus so that the links I put there make sense.


 * I know little about crocuses in general or their botanical classifications, so I'll defer to you and others who have access to good sources and the know-how to interpret them. My intent was only to help facilitate discussion. (I do have various crocuses in my garden, too. All spring-flowering and nothing exotic—two cultivars each of tommasinianus and chrysanthus, one of flavus, and eight of vernus. (Daffodils are more my thing, and they fortunately have official divisions that don't necessarily relate to the scientific classifications at all.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Rivertorch,


 * Thank you for reviewing the text of my update.


 * I have created / largely updated a lot of pages on the French site and also somewhat less on the Dutch site. I am intended to translate the most representative of them and put them on the English site. Since I am not native English-speaking, don't hesitate to review my future contributions.


 * Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 18:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. The wording is still a bit awkward, but I don't feel comfortable editing it further without knowing more about the subject. In any case, your English is better than that of many native English speakers on Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks & Typography
Thanks for fixing those really stupid typos in the E.O. School talk page.... I'm so embarrassed.

BTW, I noticed you were interested in typography. I used to work in a composing room and in prepress, among other jobs. I have read books &/or articles on old typographical designers like Caslon, Goudy (your article), Bodoni, and many others. Including a rather longish book on the history of typography (but I can't remember the name or author at the moment). I have seen some really fantastic examples of early typeface book printing at Yale University's Beinecke library and at the New York Public Library. Also, William Caxton, a 15th century printer, might be considered a type designer, although the article primarily refers to him as a printer, among other professions. One of those "to-do" items I have been meaning to research, and then update the article and category, if warranted. Regards. — Becksguy (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, typography and type design have long fascinated me. When I began editing articles here, these were among the areas I had intended to concentrate on. It didn't work out that way, which is probably just as well because there are others here who have far more knowledge than I do.


 * I suspect the distinction between printer and type designer was rather minimal in the 15th century. For instance, Francesco Griffo designed and cut letterforms in his own highly creative and masterful style, but it is likely that the printer who commissioned him, Aldus Manutius, usually played a major role in the initial conception of their typefaces. We can thank them both, I guess, for Bembo, which is one of six or seven serif text faces I'd want if I were stranded on a desert island with a printing press ;) Speaking of Caxton, we seem to be missing an article on the typeface of that name. Hmmm. Rivertorch (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Rivertorch (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Voting records

 * Paragraph transcluded from User_talk:Doug: Hello. Re your comment here, I totally respect your decision not to keep off-wiki notes on your vote but would point out that, using the screen shot method, the "waste of time" amounts to about one second. Seriously. There may be other concerns, of course, especially if using a public terminal or shared computer. Rivertorch (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean it personally, I feel it is a waste of my time. Hope you didn't take it way.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I just was noting how little time was involved. The screen shot goes straight in my WP folder and there it stays, should I ever want to refer to it. (I don't think I ever have, but it's nice to know I could.) Thanks for your reply! Rivertorch (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Replied there. Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Older talk archive | Newer talk archive | Current talk page