User talk:Rivertorch/Archive1

RIVERTORCH TALK ARCHIVE 2006–2007

This page is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it.

Welcome!

Hello, Rivertorch, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

 ~ clearthought 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goudy stuff[edit]

Hi Rivertorch, posted my thinking on the Goudy (Old Style) discussion page. Jim CApitol3 01:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podiatry[edit]

Hello Rivertorch,

Kindly refrain from attempting to edit the "Podiatry" page. Since you don't possess any podiatric physician credentials you then cannot possibly make intelligent and informed remarks on "Podiatry". In other words, leave all editing to Doctors of Podiatric Medicine.

Thank you. (posted at 06:07 on 7 February 2007 by PublicSafetyOfficer )

Hello, PublicSafetyOfficer,

Thank you for contributing to my talk page. I will continue to edit the Podiatry page, as well as an ever-increasing number other pages in need of improvement. In the meantime, please allow me to make several suggestions that are likely to make your interactions with other Wikipedians more constructive:

(1) Assuming something about another editor's credentials is a risky thing. You might be wrong.

(2) Even if you're not wrong, it's irrelevant. Most Wikipedia articles are written and edited primarily by laypersons with no professional knowledge of their subjects. In fact, using one's own specialized knowledge is really not what Wikipedia is about at all; if that's your thing, you should write books, magazine articles, or web content, and then let Wikipedia editors cite your work.

(3) Even if your request is couched in ostensibly polite language, asking another editor not to edit a certain page is extremely bad form. Wikipedia is a wiki; all are welcome to edit it.

(4) It is considered good form to sign your posts on a talk page. This can be accomplished by typing the tilde symbol (~) four times at the end of your posts.

(5) When you begin a new topic on a page (as you did on this one), it's best to place it under a new heading. There's more than one way to do this, but it's easiest just to type two equals signs (==), then the name of the new heading, then another two equals signs.

(6) Vandalism is a fact of life, and it is primarily practiced by new editors with no sizable track record of legitimate edits. As the log on your contributions page makes clear, you fit into that category. I did give you some benefit of the doubt by tagging my reversion as "apparent vandalism". You, on the other hand, made significant—and, to my way of thinking, deleterious—changes to the Podiatry article with no explanatory tag whatsoever.

(7) Discussions about the content of an article often can be very productive when carried out on the article's talk page. If you have legitimate concerns that you believe require sweeping changes, it is helpful to other editors to post an explanation of what you're doing and why; this tends to minimize misunderstandings. If you have any further concerns about the content of the Podiatry article or my edits to it, feel free to open a discussion on the Podiatry talk page. Rivertorch 07:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Picture of the Year 2006[edit]

I assert that I voted for Picture 7. Honest. commons:User:Rivertorch

Bose (company)[edit]

High-end: arbitration?

If you still have an interest your input may be helpful. HonestGuv 13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still have an interest but am too busy to contribute much anymore. If there's anything specific I can do to help, please let me know, but I've read the talk page and think you may as well be beating your head against a brick wall; reason and logic are apparently useless. Rivertorch 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I can suggest nothing specific that I would expect to be successful in improving the content of the article. My motivation for posting was to observe the process of dispute resolution since I was surprised when the first "resolver" felt that reading the talk page was irrelevant. To be honest, without your input the outcome was probably more surprising and interesting to me as a relative newcomer than with it. HonestGuv 08:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was extremely wary of getting involved with that article, given its history, but I thought it might be nice for something purporting to be an encyclopedia to have an article rather than an ad. I did try to bend over backwards to be neutral, but I needn't have bothered. "Spin" is apparently more important than fact, and the WP rules evidently don't allow anyone to employ critical thinking to draw any meaningful distinction between the two. The article is crap now. The millions that Bose spends on p.r. is probably wasted, since they have a virtual army who will do the job for free. Anyway, thanks for your input. Rivertorch 19:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roadie etc.[edit]

Are you sure the other folks weren't there? The All Music Guide [1] mentions all of them in a grand finale after the second Alice Cooper song. I don't have the disc and it's OP, so ... Also, I've been listing Kate and Anna McGarrigle as Kate McGarrigle, Anna McGarrigle. Welcome back. We're a little past 1/3 of the way done with the existing list. There appear to be quite a few missing appearances as well. Dang, she's prolific. Rubioblanca 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Prolific" is almost an understatement. You're misreading what the All Music Guide says. It's not written clearly, but what they're calling a "grand finale" consists of multiple songs by different artists. There is no hint whatsoever of Jerry Lee, Hank, or AATW on the song—just Roy and Emmylou singing to an undistinguished accompaniment. The song (which I believe was first released as a single, but I can't prove it) has always been credited in radio play to Roy and Emmy only, and that's what it says on the back cover and liner notes of Emmylou's Duets, which contains the song. Rivertorch 16:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Actually, I think All Music Guide is not just unclear; it's flat wrong. Oh well, my bad. Any Kate and Anna preference (consistency and all that)? Rubioblanca 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to say. No huge preference either way, but here was my reasoning: as songwriters they are separate entities, but as performers/recording artists they seem more like a collective. Since WP has a rather detailed Kate and Anna McGarrigle article as well as skimpy separate articles for both of them, I figured it might as well be the collective link.

Incidentally, I should say that I know zilch about Roadie, and there could conceivably be a single-song finale with all of those artists performing a different version of the song (in the same year as the single came out, no less!), but I would be hugely amazed. And more than a little frightened. Rivertorch 00:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Emmylou[edit]

Hi Rivertorch, Please comment on the Music Chart data question on the discography discussion page. I need input for consensus and to see if I'm reading/interpreting policy correctly. Sorry for being a pest; please chalk it up to my being frustrated with data deletion without discussion. I need/want your input for a reality check. Rubioblanca 17:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newer talk archive | Current talk page