User talk:Rivertorch/Archive8

 R I V E R T O R C H TALK ARCHIVE LATE 2011 '''This page is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it.'''

Talkback
See 'stats' for the update. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Strasbourg article
Thank you for your edit. Not only did the edit that you undid contain some rather odd English; it was factually incorrect. When I lived in Strasbourg fifty-odd years ago, it was predominantly German-speaking, having been in Germany for more than half of the previous hundred years. LynwoodF (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, age is subjective. What's ancient to some is quite recent to others. (And kids today are just as ignorant as I was when I was a kid!) Rivertorch (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Pico
No problem PiCo (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agatha Christie
Your position on the propriety of using both the pre-nominal and the post-nominal on the article on Agatha Christie is confusing. While acknowledging the fact that persons holding substantive titles have both the pre-nominal and the post-nominal at the start of their Wikipedia article by convention on the talk page of the article, you have reverted an edit to the form "Dame Agatha Christie DBE" using the justification "Undid good-faith edit. Not "Dame" *and* "DBE"—one or the other. See talk page". So the article starts with "Agatha Christie DBE", which cannot be justified, unless the DBE is not substantive.

Would you care justifying your rather extraordinary edit?

Atchom 01:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Short answer: No. I don't think my edit was extraordinary or that any justification is indicated (although I have to ask: does making an extraordinary edit mean I'm an extraordinary editor?) . Long answer: The edit was back in May, and you can see from the talk page that I've made subsequent comments reflecting the ongoing discussion and my evolving understanding of the issue. In any event, I'm puzzled that you've brought this to my talk page. I'm happy to discuss it further here if you'd prefer, but I think it would be better either to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Agatha Christie or just be bold and change it to what you think is right. Better yet, do both! (Btw, I admit to being more confused than ever after reading what you wrote below, but I'll look forward to seeing how it all gets resolved.) Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add relevant extracts from Manual of Style (biographies):

"Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated." From Manual of Style (biographies) Dame Agatha being a British subject, and the DBE being a British honour, the relevant post-nominal would need to be included.

"Honorific prefixes [...]

The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles discussed in the Honorific Titles section below. Honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters. [...] As with regular titles, honorific titles should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that."

Dame being a honorific prefix, its inclusion is justified by the above extract.

Furthermore, even if you consider using both the pre-nominal and the post-nominal is redundant, which is not supported by the relevant guidelines, it would still be wrong to use "Agatha Christie DBE" since it would imply that the DBE is not substantive.

Atchom 02:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Leonid Pastur
Dear Rivertorch,

I have edited the article Leonid Pastur; now there are 4 secondary sources (of which the first one, a paper in a refereed journal, contains most of the info). So I erased the tag; please have a look -- is it OK now?

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A definite improvement. Good job! Rivertorch (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is creating an article on same-sex reproduction methods a good idea?
Hey, Rivertorch. In researching same-sex reproduction methods for a fairly new editor at the Sexual intercourse article, I wondered why such an article hasn't been created already. Do you think creating it is a good idea? From what I've seen online, I think a good article could be made about it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not RT, and I don't play RT on TV, but I'll cast an unsolicited !vote and say "Yes", I agree a good article could be crafted on the subject. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. Thanks, Scheinwerfermann. I'm sure Robertbayer, the editor I added the reproduction information for, would appreciate it a lot. I just wish he'd get in contact with me through email. Sure, I hardly check my email, but I'm getting better about that, LOL. I even let him know that he could contact me that way. But I wouldn't be surprised if decided not to because of how long I took to honor what could be viewed as a promise. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Parthenogenesis. But seriously, folks . . . yes. If the sources are there for an article, I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea. Let me know if I can do anything to help. Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't clear, Rivertorch, I'm talking about human same-sex reproduction methods. In regards to same-sex reproduction, I don't think of non-humans as having "methods." But thank you for your input. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You were entirely clear. My "but seriously, folks" apparently was opaque. You can see why my stand-up comedy career came to a quick and unhappy end. [citation needed] . (Translation for those on a vastly different humor wavelength: Ignore any signs of silliness on my part. I think you should write that article. Want some help?) Rivertorch (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, help would be appreciated. I need another article under my "created" belt, one that is not about soap operas (LOL). I moved away from mostly working on soap opera articles some time ago, but I have yet to create a non-soap opera article. It's either this or serial rape, or both, before I leave Wikipedia for good (which is something I'm pretty set on these days). Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You must do what's best for you, but I think your leaving would be Wikipedia's loss. As for the article, the topic isn't one I'm very familiar with. But I'm quite good at drudgery such as copyediting, not too shabby at writing (which I get around to all too rarely anymore), fair to middling at arranging and organizing things, and will go dig up sources if compelled to at gunpoint. (Slow Internet connection is a real limiting factor right now when running searches and downloading things.) Let me know how I can help, and I'll make every effort. Rivertorch (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rivertorch. And if I decide to create the article, I'll definitely have you assess it for whatever improvements it might need. I might even consult with you on certain things about it before it's created. For the time being, I have other matters to attend to on Wikipedia, so I'll worry about that stuff first. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Moye Stephens
Moye Stephens - Flying Carpets, Flying Wings ==

Rivertorch, Just to clarify - there is no intent by myself or any one else to promote or violate any wikipedia policies. I happen to be the 'expert' on Moye W. Stephens and the Flying Carpet around the world flight; Pancho Barnes, and the Wedell-Williams Air Service. As such, I feel comfortable and obligated to update sites relevant to these subjects. If a person has first hand knowledge about a subject matter, and that means interviewing the subject, why to you deem in inappropriate. I am aware, at this point, of wikipedia's policies. Some of the technical aspects I am still learning. I did not reply to any previous notices from you as I did not receive any emails and have not gone on wikipedia for since March. I do not know what other accounts and IP addresses you are referring to - I use two - my laptop and home computer. I have tried to follow the format already inputed in edits. Like I stated previously, I have not attempted to edit anything on wikipedia for months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schultzbarbara (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a puzzle. There is a clear record showing that you edited the Richard Halliburton article on June 30, a mere four weeks ago. In addition to Richard Halliburton and Moye W. Stephens, at least three other articles—Elly Beinhorn, Northrop N-1M, and Paul Mooney (writer)—have seen the insertion of your book. Besides yourself, users responsible for this mass insertion have included User:Barbarahschultz, at least four unregistered IPs assigned to Verizon Wireless, and one other registered editor who shall remain unnamed here and is apparently a big fan of your book. Sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or incredible coincidence—it really doesn't much matter; the effect is the same, and it's unfortunate both for Wikipedia (because it's disruptive) and for you (because it creates the appearance that you and/or your fans are going to great lengths to promote your book). I left messages for you at User_talk:Barbarahschultz in March and at User_talk:Schultzbarbara in June. (Please read them.) When you log in, a prominent notice appears to let you know you have new messages on your talk page. As I said in my reply to your email, the normal method of communication at Wikipedia is the talk page; email is reserved for personal or confidential matters, and everything else gets discussed out in the open. I'll take you at your word that you're the expert on the topic. Experts can be a very good thing at Wikipedia, especially since they know where to find the most reliable sources, but when those sources happen to be the fruits of an expert's own research—well, it makes things a bit awkward, both because of original research and, in the case of books, because of promotional concerns. At this point, I'd suggest the following:
 * Pick one account and use it exclusively for all your edits. If you feel you must use a separate one on your laptop, identify both as belonging to the same person. Instructions for that are here.
 * Read read the guidelines on conflict of interest and bookspam.
 * Begin a discussion at Talk:Moye W. Stephens, explaining exactly why your book is relevant and should be listed in the article. If there is consensus to list it, someone will add it. (You can repeat this process at the other articles if you want. I wouldn't do more than one at a time, since it would look spammy.)
 * Take a look at Welcome, which has all kinds of helpful tips and links. Ask me or at the Help Desk if you get stuck on "the technical aspects".
 * Sorry if some of this seems arcane and pointless. Wikipedia does have a learning curve, but there's a method to the madness.
 * Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

 * For the record: Since I am not "an editor concerned in this dispute", I have declined. Rivertorch (talk)

dealing with newbies
Hi Rivertorch, I don't think we've crossed paths before, but I wanted to congratulate you on your polite and restrained handling of User:Barbarahschultz and User:schultzbarbara, here and on her/their talkpages. I am attempting to do the same with another editor, User:Gerry Max, who I see you have warned as well. Apparently they are both published authors who know each other IRL. I am having to commit emotional resources to assuming good faith on his part, but am reiterating that I am willing to help any newcomer who wishes to learn. I admire your wording, and may borrow and repurpose it. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the kind words, BrainyBabe. In my experience, nothing makes AGF more difficult to follow than users who repeatedly decline to respond to messages on their talk pages, so I was pleased to see both of those editors finally engaging. Over the long haul, I'd like to see some sort of effort to better acquaint new or occasional users with the concept of talk pages—what they're for, how they work, and so on. I've seen several users express surprise that no one had "bothered" to email them about problematic edits, and I wonder if this may be a widespread phenomenon. As for Schultz and Max, I'm on vacation and haven't been paying close attention for several days. I hope things have settled down. Rivertorch (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Chronicles Reply
Hi, my reasoning is quite simple. I have read the joint biography of Tolkien, Lewis, and Williams entitled The Inklings by Humphrey Carpenter in its entirety. It is a thorough book, and contains absolutely no mention of any influence of The Hobbit on the Narnia books, though it does mention Tolkien's influence on Lewis' theology/apologetics and on Lewis' science-fiction trilogy. Even unconscious influence is not a good suggestion, as both CSL and JRRT were deeply influenced by the same set of fantasy writers, in particular both were mega-fans of George MacDonald, and any apparent similarity between their works is far more easily accounted for by the shared influence of MacDonald on both of them, rather than the influence of one on the other. Similarly, the studies of Lewis by Kathryn Lindskoog and the bio of Lewis by A. N. Wilson mention no influence of The Hobbit on Narnia. (That's about as opposite as two perspectives you can get. Lindskoog is very traditional Christian, and while Wilson has recently become Christian, he was veering towards atheism at the time he wrote his Lewis bio.)

Regardless of individual Lewis books, I think the absence of any assertion is an especially well-researched joint bio of Lewis AND Tolkien is definitive. If Carpenter doesn't mention it, it's safe to bet it isn't true, unless some new personal correspondence has come to light.

Carpenter DOES think that the figure of Aslan was influenced by Charles Williams' novel The Place of the Lion.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That's very informative. I'll see if I can pick up a copy of the Carpenter and maybe the others. Rivertorch (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Star
Thanks! I think it's a bit silly to argue over uncontested biographical facts like this.  Will Beback   talk    09:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Understatement. Anyway, there has been a lot of it lately. If no reputable sources contest it, by golly we have Wikipedians who'll step up to the plate and sanitize the article of every gay celebrity, living or dead, who never signed a sworn statement attesting to his own—ahem—"lifestyle". (Gag.) There are times when I think the project is doomed. Rivertorch (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Karen Grassle
Hello there Rivertorch,

This is really my first time editing Wikipedia but I changed some things on Karen Grassle's page and noticed you changed them back citing 'unsourced changes'. Please forgive my ignorance if I should have cited myself, but I am her daughter, and I know these things because well, she's my mother. And Scott was an osteopath, something he was so egotistically proud of and got offended if called a (and I'm quoting him now) 'mere' psychiatrist. So I felt if only because I was told so often he was an osteopath her page should reflect that. I also no longer live with her, I'm 27, be kinda silly still living with my mom. She also moved from the palisades to the Bay Area quite a few years ago.

Anyway, I don't want to get into some type of editing war, actually I'm proud of her for finally getting up some personal website for her fans, and apparently she even put up a picture of us walking in the Garden of the Gods this summer.

If I should be citing myself feel free to let me know how/where. I'm certainly not a wiki expert. Have a pleasant day.

Synamin (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Synamin/Lily


 * Hmm. Well, first off, welcome to Wikipedia. I've taken the liberty of placing a "welcome" template on your talk page. It includes various links that you may find informative and helpful. A careful read of the policy on verifiability and the attendant guideline on reliable sources should make clear that citing yourself wouldn't work. You might also take a look at the "Close relationships" section of the conflict-of-interest guideline while you're at it. I'm still on vacation and not spending much time on-wiki right now, but I'll give the specific content concerns some thought and reply further later in the week. I don't see that there's any controversial content at stake, so there's no rush. I see that you've made further edits to the article, though, and hope you'll keep in mind that information that's verifiable using reliable secondary sources, not personal knowledge, is the basis for Wikipedia content. That standard is taken especially seriously in articles about living persons. Rivertorch (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

just blatant wrong
wait for consensus 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny, that's precisely what I urged you to do. Twice. (1 2) Instead, you've continued to add illiterate gibberish to the article, as well as argumentative illiterate gibberish to the talk page. Perhaps you have a valid point regarding content, but you seem unable to express it in English. May I suggest you try editing your native-language Wikipedia instead of this one? Rivertorch (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Human article
Hi. Will you take a look at the Talk:Human section about an objection I have concerning a recent edit? 193.169.145.43 (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I took a look. But that talk page is well watched, so I'm unsure why you're contacting certain editors like this (or how you're selecting us, for that matter). Your contributions appear to be focused exclusively towards responding to one other editor; please take care. Rivertorch (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw you two (you and Cybercobra) in the edit history and you on the talk page. But one cannot always be sure if a matter is going to be reverted and debated by more than two users on the article talk page. Thank you again for commenting in the discussion. 193.169.145.62 (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Train Songs
Hi, Rivertorch. I'm still working on the List of Train songs now and then and would like your feedback on a major change I'm in the process of making. As an experiment, I bolded half of the song titles (but not the quotes), because they didn't stand out enough from the artist links. For example, if you're scrolling to look for a title (try the second half of the list), you have to stop periodically to catch the titles, whereas with bold, it's easier to scan them. This is especially apparent on a smart phone, even in smaller views. Anyway, that's my "pitch." When you get a chance, let me know what you think. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the boldface is preferable. It all looks like masses of boring gray text otherwise. And nice work, btw; I've been contributing only minimally for a while now and hadn't realized how well the list is shaping up! For the record, the page in question is at List of train songs (note the lowercase 't'); the link above redirects to something quite different. Rivertorch (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.
I looked for the citation needed format but gave up and put it as I did. The history says that you fixed it for me.David R. Ingham (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. That template and lots of others can be found here. I actually wondered whether that was the one you were after, since your edit summary said "This does not make sense to me". Rivertorch (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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