User talk:Rividian

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WikiProject Louisville Invite
The more the merrier.-- Bedford 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place  on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. скоморохъ 04:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, mea culpa, I must have momentarily mistook you for the author. Regards, скоморохъ  14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding History of Louisville, Kentucky
I am confused why you boldly change Nehrams2020's sweep count. I am sure that Nehrams2020 is a more experienced in reviewing GA than you and I trust his judgement. Can you explain why you said "please follow the GA review guidelines (which require reading the articles you review) if you want to increase your tally here"? OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The GA review guidelines say "Read the whole article" while on Talk:History of Louisville, Kentucky he admits he "didn't read the entire article" (exact quote). So it's clearly an invalid review. --Rividian (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Louisville, Kentucky
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest in the GA process. I can see that you disagree with the review that I performed on History of Louisville, Kentucky, but on Wikipedia, instead of continually reverting back and forth over disagreements, it is best to assume good faith and determine how the problem can be fixed. I reviewed the article several months ago and had a long discussion with W.marsh (who was a main contributer) who did a good job on writing/improving the article. If you believe that I did a "drive-by" review of the article, that is fine, you can see my explanation on the talk page of the article and determine your review based on the discussion. I explained my rationale for why the article should be delisted (it did not meet several of the criteria), and because no progress was appearing to be made in my explanation, I did not see it beneficial to continually make the same arguments over the review. Several times I stated that the article could be nominated at Good article reassessment (where other editors can determine if an error was made by the reviewer), and if you are interested in returning the article to GA status without changing its current state, I would recommend that. If you want to make the suggested corrections that were listed in the review, you can then renominate the article at Good article nominations. However, I do not see a need to edit war over something that should have been completed several months ago. Wikipedia functions better when editors work on collaborating on improving articles instead of continuously reverting each other. Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and if you have any further questions on the matter, I will be happy to answer them and try to clarify any issues you have. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read the entire article, and the guidelines say that you must. No ammount of boring and overlong comments will change that. I just don't want the article talk page to say it failed GA when a valid assessment was never performed. --Rividian (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking over the guidelines, many people do not. More important than the guidelines for reviewing the articles is the criteria for passing the article. In the criteria, it clearly states that an adequate lead needs to be present along with inline citations for statistics and questionable statements. I stated that I did not read the whole article, which for some reason seems to be the main focus of the review, instead of the focus on improving the article. I read the majority of the article (about 80-90%), and did not deem it necessary to read every single sentence after the article already did not meet the criteria for remaining a GA. I read every section to get a overview of the quality of the article, and for some sections it wasn't completely necessary to read every fact. When an article is quick-failed because it has a cleanup tag at GAN, reviewers are not told to completely read the entire article when they already know it should be failed. Reviewers may do so to continue to tell nominators what the article should fix for their next nomination of the article. My apologies for writing "boring and overlong" comments, I just felt it best to properly explain my rationale for the review of the article. If you continue to think that my review was performed in error, feel free to use any of the two options I mentioned previously, or ask another one of the GA sweeps reviewers to perform a review on the article. All GAs will be reviewed for sweeps, and just because there is disagreement over how the review was performed, it still needs to be looked over. I welcome your comments and once again apologize for the long comment. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pricewatch
I have placed the original text of the article here: User:Rividian/Pricewatch. Regards, ... disco spinster  talk  16:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives elections, 2008
The criteria being that they are in the above table as rated by Cook, Rothenberg, and CQ Politics? So the two sections should contain the exact same races? Qqqqqq (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my understanding, but the "Races by state" section contains prose summaries of those races... for people who want to read about the contested races looking at more than just the numbers. --Rividian (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, the POV problem is that there are many races discussed as being competitive, without a definition as to what constitutes competitive; there are many races in the States section that are not in the Cook-Rothenberg-CQ chart. It's clearly a POV issue to say that some incumbent will "face a tough race" (as many of the race summaries state) when that race does not meet the criteria for inclusion as stated in the previous section. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well unless we list every race except the ones where an incumbent is running unopposed, there's really no way to get around that... there's always going to be someone who thinks a given race is competitive. The article is workable using the criteria it does now... if there are unsourced claims about "facing a tough race" and other political cliches, feel free to remove them. --Rividian (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Play party (BDSM)
Hello Rividian. You and simonxag seem to be involved in an edit war on the above article. If the war doesn't stop immediately, you will both be blocked. I am closing the WP:AN/3RR case as 'Warned both editors.' A word to the wise is sufficient. If you have any further comments, add them to the discussion at the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just enforcing WP:V, he was adding unsourced material in direct contradiction of that core policy. He was in the wrong. Also, no one informed me of the 3RR notice. --Rividian (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My message above was your your notice, and I see you have reverted again since then. Reverting additions of unsourced material is *not* one of the exceptions described at WP:3RR unless it is a BLP case. Don't let yourself get blocked over a misreading of policy. Use your negotiating skills with the other editors, advertise the problem at a related WikiProject, tag the article regarding lack of references, or look stuff up yourself. I'm giving you one last chance to revert your last edit to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V says "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The quote from Jimbo Wales in that section says it as well. They are added information in direct contradiction to WP:V, a core policy. Blocking me endorses their actions, which directly violate one of our core policies. How is that right? Their edits are indefensible. --Rividian (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a negotiation. Restore the material you removed or you will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll view this as a chance to learn a little deeper how the community works and how our policies are interpreted. There are two issues here: WP:V, and WP:3RR.

WP:3RR is an upper limit on edit warring; if you revert more than 3 times on the same article in a 24 hour window, you can be blocked even if you are right except for the special case of biographical articles. This is because reverting back and forth has proven over time to be a very poor way of reaching compromise. One essay that some people like to refer to is WP:BRD.

WP:V requires material to be verifiable but doesn't require that it actually be given a source unless it is a quote, disputed, or likely to be disputed. In practice, the community strongly disfavors removing large chunks of seemingly reasonable material only because no expicit reference has been given. It is possible to do so, but it requires discussing the matter on the talk page and explaining why you have a good reason to doubt the material is correct, or why you think it is original research. One place you can get outside opinions is at WP:NORN.

We can keep talking about this here; but you should let the ANI thread rest, as your edits are indeed a violation of the 3 revert rule. I don't think you knew about it, so I don't think it would be reasonable at all to block you for these edits, but now that you know, you should take care to avoid edit warring. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All I'm asking is that we follow WP:V where it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If we can do that, I'm fine with never editing that silly article again. I regret edit warring, but then again, I was provoked into it by people violating a core policy, and one of whom admitted to gaming 3RR (see the article talk page). That has to count for something. --Rividian (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to assign any blame here. It is true that, in the end, the burden of evidence lies with the user who wishes to keep the material. But whether that burden has been met has to be decided through discussion, not by fiat of either side. In practice, it will always take some discussion if you plan to remove a significant amount of material.
 * In future cases, it may help to start by leaving a note on the talk page explaining your concerns. Give concrete examples of the statements you would like to see references for. If nobody responds, remove the most egregious unreferenced things, and see if anyone complains. Keep going that way, at a slow pace, to find out who is watching the article, and discuss it with them as they show up. It makes a huge difference if you have a good reason why you are challenging the material, beyond the mere lack of a reference - maybe you think it is false, or is original research, etc. Explain your concerns, so that the other edits can try to resolve them.
 * Also, remember that, on its own, a lack of sources isn't a reason to remove material that you think actually would be verifiable in reliable sources. All that WP:V requires is theoretical verifiability. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know... and none of what you say is a bad idea. I did doubt the verifiability of everything I removed though... and at least half of it was unencyclopedic even if verified (the etiquette section). I think I did explain all of this on the talk page. I'll take it more slowly next time... although hopefully there won't be a next time. I think I've learned dealing with these unreferenced sex articles is more trouble than it's worth, for my temperament at least. I'll stick to dealing with unreferenced articles on less incendiary topics :-) --Rividian (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an unfortunate truth that some topics are easier to work on than others. Too many editors who patrol "controversial" topics are quick to view newcomers as vandals, and too slow to assume good faith. The best thing you can do as a newcomer is build their trust that you are working to improve the article in the end (rather than just looking to be an external enforcer, or looking to make them do work to maintain the status quo). Looking up a couple references in google books, and adding those, would be one way to demonstrate you are willing to help improve the article too.
 * Of course it's extremely reasonable to stick to articles you enjoy editing, and avoid articles that cause stress. And everyone's contributions are appreciated, regardless of subject area. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kristi Johnson
There doesn't appear to be much useful there; nevertheless, I'll userfy a copy of the last revision for you to User:Rividian/Kristi Johnson. I'll also cross-post this reply, unusually, because I nearly forgot about this request after reading it – inexcusable, I am sorry to have left it so long. Nihiltres { t .l } 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted)

"Overtagging"
Please stop and take the time to read the tags before deleting them. The first tag,, is for reference improvement- the references are poorly formatted and need to be cleaned up; the second, , points out that there is a lack of references in that particular section. While they are related in that they both refer to references, the tags cover different topics. Please pay better attention to what you are doing before making these types of edits. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 18:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not just fix the article rather than make it look ugly with tags that never accomplish anything? Those tags are graffiti. --Rividian (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put them there, and I have worked on the article. I removed several other tags by fixing it up. Stop removing the others and put them back please, you are in danger of a 3R violation. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no point to the tag... I'm not going to add it back if there's no point to it. If there are challenged claims, please feel free to fact tag or remove them outright, I'm all for that. I'm just not for tags that no one can explain any point to on a given article. refimprove is for articles where the accuracy is compromised and more references are needed, that doesn't seem to be the case here. --Rividian (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ivana Loudová
The history shows that a large chunk of copyvio material was deleted, which did make the claim of notability in a more extended form. But in any case, it is often worth doing a quick Google search to see what's up with an article of this sort, and perhaps spending five minutes finding sources for the article. In this case, she is notable and I did. Slp1 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Theos Bernard
Hi, Rividian! Thank you for tagging my article for history merge. I made the cut-and-paste error and had no idea that it could be solved by adding a tag. Carpe diem! Carpe Wikipediam! Pmronchi (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank the admin that finally does the merge, I'm just a lowly peon. It's a nifty tag though. --Rividian (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Structure101 Page
Hi Rividian,

Sorry to give you more work! :-)

I posted an article on Structure101 simply because it is now a requirement of the list of static analysis tools page that each product has its own Wikipedia page, and as Structure101 didnt have one, it was removed. My first attempt I guess was a little over-zealous. The new version is stripped down to the bare bones so hopefully its acceptable now. I have deleted any text I believe to be advertising from the initial posting. If I am still in violation of the rules I would appreciate your guidance in the matter.

Regards,

Pth81 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the deletion tags for now but I'll look at it again later today, I don't have time now. --Rividian (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

IRC
Not to pick nits, but I'm curious why you wrote "Hopefully not IRC" in your recent comment on User talk:MZMcBride. I suspect it has to do with the uproar that IRC decisions have caused in the past.

If I were to take a survey on IRC rather than the wiki, make a decision on that basis, and then defend myself from on-wiki objections by saying "But I asked on IRC and everyone said it was okay" &mdash; then I would deserve your criticism. My error would be mistaking IRC consensus for community consensus.

However, I did not do that. I found MZM on IRC and communicated with him by private message. This is more or less the same as e-mail, only more convenient. The traditional criticisms of IRC do not apply here. &mdash; Dan | talk 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was more along the lines of "I hope it's somewhere I can actually see it" since I can't see IRC obviously. As well meaning as people may be, I just prefer stuff actually be done on Wikipedia where it can easily be examined to see what was actually said... rather than get it secondhand. A lot can be lost in translation. --Rividian (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is fair. I agree entirely with transparency as a general principle. In this situation, however, a brief private chat seemed like the quickest way to resolution -- I hate to see little problems like this erupt into unhappy dramas. What took place in private has now been brought, more or less in its entirety, into the open, and the problem has gone away (though do please let me know if further complications arise). I assure you, also, that I would treat you precisely as I treated MZMcBride, were you in a similar situation, presuming I were aware of it. It is not my habit to play spies, or conspire in secret. When I have private conversations like this I try to be politely businesslike, and to speak as though to a colleague, not as though to a friend. This seems to do the trick more often than not. &mdash; Dan | talk 05:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My main problem is, despite your assurances, MZMcBride is still dancing around saying he don't intend to run adminbots again... and makes it seem like the real problem is people being drama queens and harassing him. This is insulting... I just don't want unauthorized adminbots being run, this is not the first time I've been treated like dirt for actually expecting us to follow a very clearly written policy. This is why I would have preferred he make a clear statement on Wikipedia before unblocking. --Rividian (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valley Foundation
Hey Rividian, I saw you put a speedy tag on this article; the creator's since removed it. I'm unfortunately about to head offline and go to bed, but would you mind following up on this and replacing the speedy tag if that material is still a copyvio? Thanks a lot. GlassCobra 05:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still a copyvio... the diff makes it seem like it was rewritten, but I checked and all that was really done was a line of fluff was slightly rewritten and a few wikilinks were added. 99% of the text is still the same in the Wikipedia article as the URL. I re-tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks for the heads up. --Rividian (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ilulissat Declaration
Thank you for handling the transfer from quote to External link. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Principles of Public Information
You deleted this entry as a possble copyright infringement. The publication cited was originally issued by the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. As a US Government publication, the Principles are in the public domain as defined under Title 17 USC §105. I added a public domain statement to the site this morning, but I am not sure it is in the correct form. Please restore the page and advise me if I need to assert the public domain status in a different manner. Thank you,

JudithRussell (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is now at User_talk:Rudget. I am going to have to move this to the talk page of the admin who deleted the article. (I am not an admin and can't restore articles) --Rividian (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Do I need to provide additional information to the admin? If so, how would I do that?

JudithRussell (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Shiny!

 * Thanks! I came, I saw, I tagged 500 copyvios for speedy deletion. Story of my Wiki life... --Rividian (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You deserve a medal ...
for your work at the Smithers article!!! But I hope my admiration will suffice! --Slp1 (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! I was trying to figure out what on earth the block of text was when I realized it was actually someone quasi-notable and just felt like Wikifying it. --Rividian (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PD
This came up on another page I happened to notice--US Government web pages are always PD. Illustration on them occasionally aren't, but then the copyright on the illustration is specifically indicated. DGG (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What page are you talking about? I realize text produced by US government employees is PD. --Rividian (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug Bell
Hey man, just wanted to say sorry if I came across snide on Doug Bell AfD. For what it's worth, I've never heard of the guy and never played his game. I've just argued equally strongly on the List of psychic abilities AfD, and I'm a skeptic of the paranormal, so I hope you can have a some good faith that I try not to !vote on prejudice. The Doug Bell article is an example of an unusual situation where not much coverage has been found on the creator of something well-noted. As I see it the Wikipedia guideline WP:CREATIVE says such people are notable. Usually I'm a complete hound for the general notability guideline, but in this instance I think the exception guideline is right. Someone who looks up their favourite computer game, clicks to find out more about the author, will find out other games he's developed and books he's written. So it's not just a policy loophole, there's reader value in it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I simply do not like the idea of hosting some guy's resume... that's all this article can ever be unless sources are found. I thought Wikipedia was a good idea because of concepts like WP:V and writing articles based on published sources, rather than our own opinions. But apparently WP:V isn't really enforced when it comes to content we happen to like... I'm getting increasingly sick of the way nobody takes what's supposed to be a core policy very seriously. What mostly annoyed me about that thread was how even the admins utterly didn't care about finding sources for a biography of a living person... if that's how it is around here, I'm really not sure I want to keep editting. --Rividian (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're barking up the wrong tree blaming enforcement of WP:V. Many people's existence can be verified with a phone book, which is why verifiability isn't terribly relevant for deciding what subjects should have articles. Perhaps you could narrow your disappointment down to the WP:CREATIVE guideline, which is what let him through? It's a remnant of the old BIO guidelines that predate the general notability concept, and you wouldn't be alone if you think they're outmoded. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought articles like this were a relic of days when being a Wikipedia editor entitled you to an article, but I'm apparently wrong. I really don't have the patience to try to fix WP:BIO... I thought people had the common sense not to confuse resumes with encyclopedia articles, but apparently I was wrong. --Rividian (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Grapes of Wrath (film)
I agree you addition in excellent. Great citation as well! Congrats. Luigibob (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Useless if we don't apply it
Even admins want to keep articles there are no sources for... and when I try to remove unsourced and dubious claims I am told it's vandalism to not just add a fact tag and wait years for sources that don't exist. The unenforcability of this policy is ridiculous... it's as if people think sourcing is still optional, and all too often admins claim that the person asking for sources is no more correct than the person wanting to restore unsourced content, it's merely a difference of opinion. --Rividian (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is enforced. But it is verifiability and not verification that is being enforced.  Citations are not required by this policy -- that's a misinterpretation that is very easy to make, and a great many people do.  Only the potential of sourcing is required, that is, sources must be out there.  If something doesn't have sources out there somewhere, then it isn't verifiable and that item is subject to being deleted.  It's a subtle distinction, yes, but very carefully maintained by those who watch over this policy.  The wording of the policy is misleading, perhaps intentionally so, and because of this  it provides the image that Wikipedia seeks reliability by requiring that everything in it be referenced.  But it is just an appearance - because verifiability is much different than actual verification.  So people are allowed to jump to this conclusion, as no clarification is provided in the policy.  It's a political balancing act, between being largely unreferenced and wanting to be fully referenced, and between verification and the wholesale deletion of a huge proportion of Wikipedia.  The reality is that most of Wikipedia is unreferenced.  We can't allow that material to be deleted, because that would be too damaging and costly.  So, if someone goes on an enforcement rampage to delete every article they come across that lacks sources, they will likely be the focus of an RfC, and shut down.  Therefore, the policy is not useless, and serves an extremely important purpose.  The Verifiability policy is the fulcrum point of a check and balances system.  It is a compromise between deletionism and inclusionism, and is at the very center of Wikipedia's highly political structure.  Once you understand this and embrace it, you will have achieved Wiki-Zen.  :)  Become one with the wiki.  Good luck.  Have fun.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    06:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem
You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Atlantis Plastics
It was a pleasure collaborating with you this morning. Very sad circumstances, but I did enjoy working with you to get that information up so quickly. Will be taking a bit of a break for now, so please continue making improvements at will. Thanks again. --Art Smart (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise... I think we handled it well. I don't anticipate making any more major edits to the article but I'll be watching it. --Rividian (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Kentucky NHLs and NRHPs
Hi. Got your message at my talk page. By the way, are u a Kentucky wikipedian? See List of NHLs in KY, an article that i have worked on, currently subject to a WP:NRHP clean up drive ending July 4. Any improvements to its articles would be appreciated, in a general way.

About whether an article with bare URLs is a stub or not, I think it depends. Bedford knows well how to format references properly, and could easily remedy the situation. doncram (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You could easily remedy the situation too, and I don't mean by nagging people.. it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia only Bedford can edit. I am the IP on the L&N building page by the way. --Rividian (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay no problem. By the way, i have fixed up Bedford's references numerous times before, i was just getting tired of that.  It would be easiest for him to do them right, up front. doncram (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. But... which of is perfect. --Rividian (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Helms
Hi, I think we're going back and forth trying to include the ref you added while keeping out vandalism. I tried to re-add the ref too. I think we're good now. justinfr (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The servers are lagging for me so I figured you didn't remove it on purpose. I've filed a request for the page to be semi-protected at WP:RPP by the way. --Rividian (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Play Party
Hi, I have undone your revision. I agree with you that any editor can not, nor should not add to an article based on personal experience, but based on citable references. The section that I returned I did so because I believe as an editor that they will prove to be citable and that I beelieve them to be accurate. I believe that those comments are true becuause of personal experience, just like all of us editors judge whether material that is in an article is likely to be accurate or not. I did not place them in the article based on personal experience as you seem to think.

I agree that it would be much more preferable if all material added to any article went in with a citation. But, removing all uncited material from every article in Wikipedia is not acceptable by Wikipedians either. So, always a judgment call is made by editors as to whetehr material added is common knowledge, or likely to be true, and therefore, eventually citable. Hence my reasoning that this particular material likely would eventually be citable, since I personally knew it to be true.

Thanks, Atom (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have been waiting for a source for these claims for years. Per WP:V the burden is on people restoring content to find sources when they restore it. How many decades must we wait before I can remove challenged content from an article? Years for people to find sources is absurd... just find the sources. --Rividian (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just curious as to what it is you have against the material in the article? Certainly most readers, especially people who have been to a play party recognize these things to be accurate and true. Wikipedia does not require citation of 'everything. If getting a citation on material that is generally understood to be true takes a while, and the material is removed, this significantly reduces the quality of articles. Is ther something specific about this material that offends you, or that you think unlikely to be accurate? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Of course play parties happen all of the time, all over the world. I think there was three play parties this past weekend in the metropolitan area that I am within. But, the topic is not such that a great deal of research on how they are run and the specific rules is probably likely. This is not the only topic, or the only article with this kind of material. Most articles have valid information within them that are well known to be true, but have no easy to find citation.

Let's work on keeping the informatio in the article in a way that overcomes whatever issues you seem to have with it. Thanks, Atom (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that no one can find sources for these claims... and WP:V clearly requires sources be found. We are writing an encyclopedia based on published sources, not a compilation of people's personal experiences. --Rividian (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Juneau Alaska Police Department
The intended target for. was Notability (law enforcement agency). This proposal adds some insight as to distinguishing law enforcement agencies. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 02:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Confederate Monument
I don't doubt it, but I'd love to see the scan.-- Bedford Pray  17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, here's a link that should work for a while: . I need to look up the monument itself and see what's out there on it... quite possibly more details in a seperate story. By the way there is a story on a seperate topic directly below where the image cuts off, this is everything about the monument. --Rividian (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's supposed to be someplace in Frankfort I can get all the PDFs of places on the National Register in Kentucky; there's a separate form for the memorial apart from the MPS. Also, I think the Encyclopedia of Louisville has something about it as well.-- Bedford  Pray  21:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I scanned in the index page of the CJ today for the monument, it gives the titles and dates of about 15 1950s CJ stories on the monument, which I will scan in tomorrow or (more likely) next week. I also have access to the NRHP files but cannot scan them. If you want to work on making this a GA I will help... not sure if there will be enough content though until I get access to all the documents. Anyway here is the index of CJ stories I will scan: --Rividian (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in case you were wondering, I've tracked down the mysterious "3rd and Shipp" intersection. It was basically absorbed by the University of Louisville, causing massive street reroutings... but now it's looking more and more like Shipp ceased to exist in that area, and the monument didn't move after all... the intersection was just drastically redone. Here's the 1913 map I'm using to make this conclusion: Any further insight would be welcome. --Rividian (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking essays
Hi Rividian - hope you don't mind, but I've added "See also" links between your Notability (geography) and my One street per 50,000 people. If you don't want the link, feel free to remove it, but it seemed appropriate. Grutness...wha?  07:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's cool, maybe a brief mention in the geography page would be a good idea. Would you believe I forgot I wrote that essay? hah. --Rividian (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ann Gotlib on Portal Louisville
And now she's on DYK too! Good work! --JayHenry (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Analolgies

 * I was hoping you could understand by analogy, if I came into a dispute with you and said "Well I don't trust you, you edit math articles" I'm pretty sure how you'd take it, and with good cause. --Rividian (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that I do not, about twice a week for several years now, receive missives telling me I'm part of an evil conspiracy because I edit Wikipedia math articles? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that I don't even know you, I am entirely unaware of what missives you receive about twice a week over a period of several years. --Rividian (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Somersville Towne Center
I'm puzzled: on this very talk page you've been arguing that material must be sourced to be retained, but at the AFD discussion you're taking what seems to me to be the opposite stance. Perhaps you could explain? Oh, and FWIW "petty" is not a helpful word. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Challenged material must be sourced, sources must be shown to exist. But the material about this mall doesn't seem to be challenged, and sources have been shown to exist to establish notability, they just aren't cited. I'm not about deleting true information about notable places because someone hasn't made the article wonderful yet... Wikipedia is a work in progress. I do believe it's petty to delete a demonstrably notable article because it needs improvement. --Rividian (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been challenged -- by an AFD. If the article is so demonstrably notable may I suggest that you go ahead and demonstrate that notability by adding the references to those sources?  Richard Pinch (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The AFD is challenging the notability, not the factuality. Notability does not require inline citations. It would be nice if someone improved the article, but utterly unnecessary, you're effectively asking me to jump through a hoop. I've already shown where the sources are. --Rividian (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have quite recently expanded and properly sourced the Somersville Towne Center article. As I see you have participated in the deletion discussion, I would request that you review the article as it now stands. Thank you for your time and effort in this matter. - Dravecky (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
Hello! I just wanted to pass along my apology for disappointing you in my train wreck of an RfA (there is a scrap metal sale going on now, if you're interested). I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandal
It appears some IP vandalize your page. Don't worry I reverted it, but you might want to be extra careful and keep an extra watchful eye on your userpage. Also, you may wanna archive your talk page it's getting kind of long. RockManQ (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
Right. And that is supposed to be more productive? GbT/c 18:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It gave people a more accurate indication of the nature of the page. --Rividian (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Block

 * To quote my own block log. "Repentance welcomed"--Tznkai (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it "good form" to warn me first? --Rividian (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be too bureaucratic of us, wouldn't it? Tan   &#124;   39  18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's "good form"!!!! --Rividian (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the information of reviewing admin:this conversation lead to this page wiping by Rividian. I have to go for about an hour, maybe two, I leave the unblock request reviewer to judge Rividan's sincerity if someone else wants to do it before I get back.--Tznkai (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Had you apologized for your overreaction, I would have probably unblocked you; since you instead responded to the block by asserting that you were entitled to a warning before being blocked, request to unblock denied, I'm afraid. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mr. Xtreme
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mr. Xtreme, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Mr. Xtreme. Thank you.  Grsz  11  19:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So now people are pouring through my edits looking for "dirt"? I hope you're proud of what Wikipedia has become. --Rividian (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, that may not have been the case. Perhaps somebody stumbled upon the article and decided it needed to be AFDed. Common courtesy means notifying people that the article they started may be deleted. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

AN notice
There is a discussion that involves you here. Tan  &#124;   39  16:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wendell Ford
Hello. I notice you did some pretty significant expansion of the article on Wendell Ford back in the summer. I'm presently trying to bring the article to GA or FA status. I wonder where you found access to the Courier-Journal articles used to expand the article. The CJ archive on their web site isn't very extensive, and they aren't in the Newsbank database I have access to either. I'd like to get a look at the articles, as I will potentially need them in a GA or FA nom. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio
Hi, Rividian! I caught this edit back in 2008

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but I realize this is a copyvio: http://www.cca.com/facility/san-diego-correctional-facility/ WhisperToMe (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, upon further examination I realize that it wasn't you who wrote the text, but SteveofCaley - Sorry for the confusion! WhisperToMe (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Transit Authority of River City
Transit Authority of River City, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wish you’d come back to the project!
I’d love to see more work from you. 9t5 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)