Hi Rivertorch, thanks for cleaning up behind me. I don't regularly edit here in en:WP, so I'm a little unaccustomed. The "edit semiprotected" template doesn't exist in de:WP, that's probably why I overlooked it. Regards, ••hugarheimur 14:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, de.wp, the happy realm where flagged revisions rule! Anyway, no problem—I'm always forgetting to change that template parameter, so I'm glad to return the favor once in a while. Rivertorch (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rivertorch: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Thanks very much. I wish you the same. Rivertorch (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you undid my revision because it's too much information, but I believe adding the election Harper became PM is more important then the next paragraph (which is still there) about the Conservatives winning their second minority in 2008.
I don't feel strongly about it and won't revert you if you add it again, but it would be best if you raised it at Talk:Stephen Harper first. Rivertorch (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Rivertorch! I ended up being the one to act on your request for revdel at ANI. In this case, posting the request to ANI was fine, as the comment was already being discussed there. But in general, I think it's preferred to ask an admin discreetly about it, to avoid drawing attention to the comment. There's an IRC channel dedicated to revdel requests (wikipedia-en-revdel, I think) if you use IRC, there's email, and there's always an admin's talk page. Anyway, thanks for bringing it up, no matter how you did it! Writ Keeper⚇♔ 15:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I did once make a quiet RevDel request to an admin, and the result was a dismissive reply and no action taken. I don't remember the who and the exact what of it (and I don't plan to hunt for such a needle in a haystack), but I remember clearly enough that the edit the admin declined to delete was uncannily similar to another edit he had recently RDed but with one critical difference: the first one was directed towards a racial minority, while the one I made the request for, while also "purely disruptive" and "grossly insulting, degrading, and offensive", was directed towards a sexual minority. Now maybe I just happened to pick the wrong admin, but how was I to know? Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests doesn't exactly include any subcats indicating who's likely to act on what type of requests. (You're not listed there at all, as I guess you know.)
Once burned, twice shy, and I don't do IRC. (Should I?) I do appreciate your willingness to use your tools in this case, and I'm grateful for your taking the time to leave me a note here. Rivertorch (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, I keep meaning to look at adding that cat, and I never really get around to it; the RevDel rules are not hugely well-defined, and I haven't been an admin long enough to crystallize a general policy of my own, so I'd be a bit hesitant to put my name down in that cat. I think I can safely assert that this was far over the line, especially given where it was posted; indeed, I'm surprised that nobody acted on the ANI thread and revdeled before I did. You're always free to ask my opinon of something like this if you like; I can't guarantee I'll act on it, but I'll try very hard not to be dismissive about it. Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with stuff like this in the past. :( IRC's a nice thing; it takes a lot of heat from people because it's off-wiki and not very transparent (valid criticisms), but it's nice for quick communication. Up to you, of course; it takes some getting used to. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 20:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I may give it a try one of these days. Fwiw, I was not surprised that nobody acted before you did. Saddened, yes; surprised, not at all. Rivertorch (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mormonism is NOT a form of Christianity. Also, look at the pages I commented on. They need some work while people are fooling with Gangnam style. Sad, isn't it? Those pages could've been done years ago, but wikipedians are STILL arguing about the sex postions page. The depravity is pathetic on here. Please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.129.167 (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have a vague recollection of answering an edit request involving Mormonism but am a bit too preoccupied to hunt for it. If you'd like a second opinion, you're welcome to reopen the request, and someone else will take a look. No idea what you're talking about re Gangnam style or sex positions; I'm pretty sure I've never edited those articles. Incidentally, you've made exactly one edit from your current IP, so it's really not feasible for me to look at any other pages you commented on. If you'd like to keep track of your contributions and allow other editors to do the same, you should open an account—it's fast, easy, and has no drawbacks. Rivertorch (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much news your read Rivertorch but I found this amusing and thought i'd share it.
...I can't believe they've changed the recruitment rules for being gay without telling us...I really don't want that tattooed =P
Enjoy ツ Jenova20(email) 20:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh . . . in lieu of various cringe-inducing puns, I'll just note that I'll never think of "beauty marks" the same way again. Or Russians, for that matter. Rivertorch (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure if they're trying to scare monger by claiming the gays are into weird crap, or just have a science and research department with a sense of humour... ツ Jenova20(email) 10:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess the former, but who knows? Things are not good in Russia these days. Rivertorch (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you were right about that. There has been a pretty steady stream of vandalism, I have put it back under indef semi. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My predictive powers have been woefully unreliable just lately, so I appreciate the heads-up. Rivertorch (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rivertorch - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my qualified support for your proposal. Rivertorch (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I changed to an oppose. Rivertorch (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cited a source and Cruise and Kilmer hate each factually. I am not edit warring. If that can be in Val Kilmer's page, why not Tom Cruise? Any reason you or anyone else got? I played by the rules. You all are making it edit warring. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Playing by the rules means not repeatedly inserting contested material without discussion or even the courtesy of an edit summary. Please read the policy on edit warring. While you're at it, please read the policy on biographical content about living persons as well; such content has a higher standard of sourcing. Regarding the citation and the content you contend it supports, I have a couple questions. First, what is Feature? Neither I nor any of our readers can assess its reliability without knowing what it is. As I asked in my edit summary, can you provide a link to something explaining the nature of the publication? Also, it's not appropriate to write that party x and party z "have a deep hatred of each other" (present tense) based on an article published 27 years ago. At best, we could say something like this: "So and so, writing in such and such magazine in 1986, reported that x and y had "a deep hatred for each other"—assuming that's exactly what it says. I'd definitely use a direct quote, but I'd be wary of using it at all because it sounds very much like undue weight. If there are newer reliable sources that report the alleged hatred remains, then I'd be more likely to see it as noteworthy.
In any event, this discussion really should take place at Talk:Tom Cruise rather than my talk page. As I said in my note to you, I suggest you open a discussion there. Rivertorch (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing more to say on the subject. Check Val Kilmer's page. Its on his written out in a way more like what your saying with the same source. Good bye. STCooper(STCooper1 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
If you have nothing more to say, that's your prerogative. Don't take it personally—I'm doing my best to stick to established policy, and I had hoped you would engage in productive discussion (preferably at the article's talk page) and help establish consensus. For posterity, I'll just note that I have removed the similar (but more carefully worded) content at Val Kilmer and explained my reasoning on the talk page there. If you're still reading this, you might consider that inclusion of content in one Wikipedia article doesn't justify its inclusion in another; content in all artictles needs to be verifiable and meet WP:NPOV, and if there's a potential problem with that in one article, there's no justification for extending it to a second article. Rivertorch (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said that because its no big deal. I only wanted it explained why it was being removed after I referenced a source as I was asked to. The reverter before you didn't explain why he reverted. STCooper1(STCooper1 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Fair enough. If everyone consistently used edit summaries, Wikipedia would be a more tranquil place. Happy editing! Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very quick response. Thank you. I don't suppose there would be much support for setting up a general email for revdel requests, the way there is for oversight? I don't request either one often, but when I want to request revdel I go first to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, try to remember who's on what continent and is likely to be around, then check user contribs for the likely candidates until I find one who's actually made a recent edit. A little cumbersome, although I have to say it has always worked so far! Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 13[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Internet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consolidation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thank you, DPL bot. You're my hero. Rivertorch (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The links to Gagosian Gallery are not intended as promotional, but are there to help any wikipedia user looking for additional biographical and exhibition history of the artists. It provides users with an additional resource for the artists (all subjects of the wikipedia pages that have been modified). All the pages that have been changed are in fact those of artists that are represented by Gagosian Gallery as is evident here: [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GogoW24 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning that the artists are represented by the gallery. Wikipedia is selective in what resources it provides—hence the guideline on external links. (Note: this is a continuation of a thread begun at User talk:GogoW24.)Rivertorch (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I left a link to the External Links Noticeboard on your talk page. It probably would be best if you joined the discussion there. I'll be offline for some hours and so won't respond further either here or there. Rivertorch (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Original Barnstar
You're an original and i appreciate the good work you do here, here is a humble barnstar to exemplify my appreciation! Insomesia (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you! I think it's a very nice barnstar. Rivertorch (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is accurate, damn. When B. was banned for socking, I wanted to contact him to say, "Why? You did good work here, you were one of the most visible and productive contributors on LGBT topics, you were a respected Wikipedian I looked up to and with whom I had hoped to collaborate on several articles, and then you went and did something incredibly stupid and threw it all away." I never got around to contacting B., but I hope he'll see this now and rethink his priorities. Abusing the trust of the community isn't a shortcut to a better encyclopedia or a better world; it just makes things more difficult for your peers who are still slogging away, playing by the rules. Thanks anyway, but I think I'd better give you your barnstar back. Rivertorch (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Rivertorch. It's a dark day for the project when someone betrays the trust of community as this person has done. I wasn't even aware of this Benjiboi person until yesterday, and was shocked about this revelation. I'm hurt that someone could be so deceitful and selfish when so many of us collaborated with him in good faith, and even recognized his work and defended his contributions. I still want to believe that it's not true and that I will awaken from this bad dream, but eventually my denial will pass. Sadly, this will leave me more distrustful of other editors. What a disgrace. - MrX 13:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Benjiboi was one of the most visible contributors on LGBT topics. He was interviewed in The Signpost, edited the WikiProject LGBT studies newsletter for a bit, and was generally a huge asset to Wikipedia before getting mired in COI controversy. To be fair, he was treated less than optimally when the controversy began, but that's par for the course around here and is no excuse for turning into an evil sock. I don't know what it is that makes Wikipedia so addictive to some people that they can't just let it go when everything goes south. I mean, I suppose I'm addicted, but if circumstances ever got to the point where my presence was generally unwelcome, I'd like to think I'd just walk away and stay away. Maybe I'm being too judgmental, I don't know. Rivertorch (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's too bad. Thanks for letting me unburden myself on your talk page. - MrX 21:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering if you'd check out a page I'm working on, and let me know how it's shaping? It would mean a lot! lol --Matt723star (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you mean, I think. Off the top of my head, I question whether it meets the notability guideline and, if so, whether it has enough reliable secondary sources. However, I've never edited any articles about web series and am unfamiliar with our standards for writing about them, so I'm really not the best person to ask. You've obviously put a lot of effort into it. I'd suggest that you look at the histories of some articles on similar topics to see who has been involved in writing and maintaining them, and ask those editors for advice. Don't be in a rush to move it into mainspace; leave it in your sandbox unless you're sure it's not going to get AfDed again (and you might ask Kww, since he advised you on that same point). Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do look at User:Timtrent/Articles on suicides feel free to enhance it, and then, if you feel it is ready, move it to WIkipedia: space and place it in relevant categories. I fear I am standing too close to it to enhance it, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, you didn't waste any time, did you? I actually need to be offline now, but I promise to take a look at it later today or tomorrow (power supply permitting—Old Man Winter, in his death throes, is giving me one last slap upside the head). Rivertorch (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No point in hanging around if the muse is present. The only rush is the rush you choose to be in. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that were true off-wiki! Anyway, I read it and need to mull over some of its points. It's a difficult topic, for sure. Rivertorch (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly needs some time and thought. Please feel free to bring those whose work you appreciate to rip it apart and put it back together. When that is done we will have something worth releasing into the wild. I am not wedded to a single word in the text. The essay is there to be butchered and remade. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really must leave it alone now. I've weeded he flower beds and trimmed the hedge. The lawn is now aerated and the path has been raked and weedkilled. Time to be a father, not a mother. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weedkiller schmeedkiller. Go organic! If you don't mind it sitting in your user space a few more days, I'll do some ripping apart on my own when I have a moment, then I'll invite a few people over and we can have a garden party. Rivertorch (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That works just fine for me. I never quite know when to launch one of these things into the wild anyway. I know I can just move it, but it feels arrogant. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, FF. I haven't forgotten—just very busy over the past couple of weeks. The kind of busy that allows for reverting vandalism and minor copyediting and other things that don't require much brainpower (or not, as the case may be) but doesn't permit the level of concentration required to think carefully or creatively. I have been giving it some thought at odd moments and I promise I'll get back to it this week with an eye to moving it forward. In the meantime, the nudge is much appreciated. Rivertorch (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of stuff I understand. MIndless tasks are a relief when very busy. Ones that require thought have to stand in line. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sums it up pretty well. I had intended to tackle it last night but no dice. It really doesn't matter, but if it bothers you being in your user space, you can always move it over to mine. Otherwise, I'm just going to have to wait for the planets to align or something. (I also need to seriously cull my watchlist again. It's taking me up to an hour twice daily just to make sure I didn't miss Something Important.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can stay where it is :) The planets may not line up, but I can send you some cats to herd if that would help? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noooooo! I can't even herd one cat. More like the reverse, really. At the moment, he's trying to disengage me from the computer. Wikipedia not good to eat, Wikipedia not like catnip, Wikipedia not fun to chase and pounce on, Wikipedia not give me pets. You come feed me now.Rivertorch (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
waves without actually nudging 18:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
A reverse Mexican! Almost impossible to start! "Far out!". Bonus level achieved, and somehow relevant to our poet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new suicide, unfortunately. Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons has happened. I was wondering if the essay might be the more useful, and if you might consider launching it after working on it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god. Let me see if I can devote some time to that today or tonight. More likely the latter. I actually copied it to work on off-wiki but, for reasons I won't go into here but relate to the underlying topic, have felt stymied every time I've looked at it. Fair warning: I'm going to approach it more with chainsaw than scalpel. Rivertorch (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it has something that is useful left at the end, go for it. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'm roughly halfway done with my revisions and really needed to stop. Back at it tomorrow. Rivertorch (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing at all to quibble with so far. I think it shows that I provided a decent platform that is allowing significant and relatively painless enhancement. Something tells me that you are emotionally entangled with this topic. One thought is that perhaps first person plural is the wrong voice. Not sure about that at present. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm still not sure about those "we"s, but that may iron itself out in a bit when I move from the "what to say" stage to the "how to say it" stage. I'm also not sure whether my attempt to broaden the target audience (from advising WP regulars to also advising newbies and SPAs who show up at an article because of a recent event) is going to work or if the latter really should be addressed in a separate essay. At any rate, I'm not going to look at it again for a few hours, and then I'm just going to plow through to the end if I can. Then revisions and tweaks and I hope to persuade a certain other editor or two to look it over. Btw, the foundation you laid is more than "decent"; I still can't believe you dashed it off as quickly as you did. Rivertorch (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lucky. I often find writing items like this easy. Or I find them impossible. But I appreciate the ability to pass the baton onwards. The hard part is to father it and not be wedded to a single word. That one has to learn. I think your broadening is helpful, as is any addition of linkage to relevant policies, guidelines and essays. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a short paragraph on categorisation and infoboxes. IT is likely to need rewording. I have really placed it there as an aide memoire for your editing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That confusing para is now gone. It could have formed a whose essay by itself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I was kind of curious to know what you were getting at. Rivertorch (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on re-reading it, so am I! The thread I was trying to walk along was that "This may be the way we work today, but should it be the way we work tomorrow? If so, fine and dandy, if not then we all need to change it." Two things strike me about that. the first is the impossibility of turning the juggernaut, and so is the second. In both(!) cases this essay is not the place to essay (oh dear!) that change. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And on that note . . . other than a few minor changes, I'm going to put it aside for another day. I've been dealing with a phone call (RL—how dare it intrude?) and haven't even checked my watchlist yet. Rivertorch (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's never been urgent, just reasonably important. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a further section based upon current experience at a trio of suicide articles. Again I value your editing pencil. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I should be able to get back to it tonight. Incidentally, I've started watching Suicide, and there's an RfC on the talk page that you might find interesting. Rivertorch (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, yes, but also rather strange. I have opined there now Thank you for letting me know. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I think we have a decent draft at this point. One can always think of other points to address, I suppose. The recurrent "we" construction still bothers me, and I also think that some of it could be shuffled around a bit to make it flow more logically. You might take a look at the FAQ-ish stuff in my sandbox, where I pasted in some wording I was working on last week. Some of it I may have already incorporated, although not verbatim, and some of it may be beyond the scope—except if we really do want the hypothetical newbie/SPA who was affected by the suicide, and not just the average Wikipedian, to read it, these points may be helpful. Let me know, and do copy and paste any of it if you like. (Or not—I won't be offended if you don't like.)
I'd like to take a look at it again tomorrow with fresh(er) eyes and brain, and then I'd like to ask another editor or two to look it over. Maybe you would too. It might be helpful to use the talk page (User talk:Timtrent/Articles on suicides) if the conversation goes beyond us two, although I'm fine with continuing it here. Rivertorch (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we are now each standing too close to this. I know I am. I have altered the person from first person plural to impersonal third person. We will never make this perfect, even if I take up the invitation to inspect your sandbox. I believe we have created a good two-lerson-team document, and it does now need other eyes, and that talk page used for discussion form now on. It will then be migrated to Wikipedia: space along with the essay itself. I like what you've done to it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! An effective collaboration, I'd say. I wish you would check my sandbox, though, and see if you think any of that can be worked in. Either that or I'd be inclined to delete the last sentence of the lead paragraph (the bit about the target audience). I'm thinking at this point about just asking one editor, Tryptofish, to weigh in. He did the lion's share of getting Suicide of Tyler Clementi into good shape, and I think his insight would be helpful. Rivertorch (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like your sandbox. I was too tired yesterday to even think of looking. I suggest it be made a sub page and linked from the essay, to which I added a Nutshell hatnote yesterday that is imperfect. Ask whoever you trust. After all, once we let it escape into the wild then anyone will play, so a trusted editor early on os a good though. I like their work, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A subpage would work. I hadn't considered that. I guess I'd better fine-tune it a bit if it's going to stand (sort of) on its own. Sometimes I wish there were more hours in a day. Rivertorch (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOOOOOOOOO! No more hours! Please no! NO, stop hurting me!
We often forget sub pages. An FAQ is a highly beneficial use, though then do always need a "clear for newbies": return link to the main page. A header box stating that this is the FAQ page for [essay title] woudl work well, too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have played in your sandbox. There is sand everywhere now :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had replied, but apparently I imagined it. Sorry. Your sand sculpture looks good. I'm going to try to expand it a little and polish it up over the weekend (before the tide comes in). Rivertorch (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to see this. Obviously you will make whatever comment you wish. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat tedious when an ostensibly reasonable editor manages to cause mayhem. There are times when the cult of good faith and civility can be hard to bear :). I think it starts to show that the essay is required, but the suicides will wane for a while, and then the cycle will start again. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of various good-faith editors, some of whom have been here for years, and somehow nothing we're saying appears to be getting through to them. I wish this hadn't ended up at the VP and I particularly wish Matthew Shepard hadn't been mentioned, but what's done is done. In any event, I'm certainly not in the mood to deal with it today. My plate is full of real-life concerns, and every time I've dropped in to give my watchlist a quick once-over, my Internet connection has gone south. (Weather related, I think.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general those who appear to enjoy misunderstanding things depend upon those who understand them being absent. I have just reverted the reversion of a closure by an editor who ought to know better. The other editor who started this phase of mayhem does not feel to me to have an ordinary understanding of the rules of behaviour. Because, of course, we work by consensus, the project is highly vulnerable to those who misunderstand. I suspect, often, they choose to misunderstand in order to see what might happen. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Time to launch it, I think. Do we just slide it into place? and what WP:SILLYNAME shortcut should it have. SUICIDE is used. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rivertorch, i was wondering if you had any good advice or tips for User:Jenova20/Gay propaganda, which i just started? What do you think? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 15:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "gay propaganda" isn't one I remember encountering. As it stands now, I'd question that it meets WP:NOTABLE. If you can flesh it out a bit, I'd be happy to take another look. (I'd help look for sources, but today is turning out to be One Of Those Days and I haven't even checked my watchlist yet.) Rivertorch (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Don't read the news much eh? I'll add to it what i can but Google searches are full of good stuff. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 09:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an opinion on the discussion with Scientiom on his talk page about merging it into Homophobic propaganda and renaming that article? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 13:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. They shouldn't be two separate articles unless they're about two quite different things. Are they? It looks like they've already been merged, though. Rivertorch (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I see. It's a bit confusing. There are the terms and then there are the phenomena that the terms describe. All of those titles seem sort of ambiguous, but if I'm reading it correctly Homophobic propaganda isn't the same thing as what you're describing in User:Jenova20/Gay propaganda. Rivertorch (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. It looks like i can continue with this side project then. Thanks for the advice Rivertorch ツ Jenova20(email) 16:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. I fear I wasn't very helpful. A bit distracted just lately, I'm afraid. Rivertorch (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything i can help with? A problem shared is a problem halved (and yes that reads really corny but the sentiment is real). Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 22:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corn for being corny =P. If you ever need anything or you just want to chat, moan, complain, or bitch - then email me! Have a nice day/evening and do something stress-free if possible! ツ Jenova20(email) 11:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've never heard of Scott Allie and I rarely mess with images, but I went ahead and stuck my oar in. Rivertorch (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this one is working ! Of it doesn't, just search on google the following words : les portraits expressionistes de thierry Alonso gravleur.
Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPTLJC (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that link works. What I really would like is a source that clearly, unambiguously describes Depp's role in the exhibition. Does helping a friend present an exhibition make one a "patron"? Rivertorch (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this video we can see Mr Trigg Ison himself who presents the work Of the artist, at 29 seconds he speak about the collaboration between the two men...
I think that we can describe him as a patron because he became friend with the painter because of his work... It may be more accurate to say " activities in the art field"
All right. I'm not going to get to this today but will try to deal with it tomorrow. Ideally, we'd be having this conversation at Talk:Johnny Depp rather than on my talk page. In case someone else decides to answer your edit request in the meantime, it might be helpful if you proposed some wording to add to the article and indicate exactly where you want it inserted. When you comment on a talk page, please add your signature by typing four consecutive tildes: ~~~~. Rivertorch (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it looks like this, then we would be having same problemJust a moment before I had [a similar problem] (in both Chrome and Firefox), and hence I came [to VPT] to see if anyone else is having the same. Seeing your message that non-secure server doesn't have the problem, I switched to it, but there was no change, and then went to commons (to check if sisters too have the same problem). But Commons did not load initially, and after a few tries and disconnecting and connecting my internet, it did and looked normal. I came back to wp, and it too loaded correctly!···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 11:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. After reading those threads, I don't think this is the same problem. I'm dubious but guess I'll try "disconnecting and connecting my Internet". What harm could that do? Thanks for taking the time to respond! Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please find a new reference to the data. 115 was in 1950, but now 3 new islands (artificial, but still, islands) were built. Check the official government links.
451 km2 was in 1950. today is 459. check official gomnt links.
It's not that I don't believe you. Rather, your edit raised red flags because you changed the dates on the maintenance tags on the page, and there was no reason whatsoever to do that. If I hadn't been having technical problems, I might have just manually changed the dates back and left your other changes alone, although doing so seemed cumbersome when everything looked weird to me. But since you neither provided a source for the changes nor even explained what you were up to in your rather odd edit summary, I didn't bother; my assumption of good faith was just that—not an assumption that your changes were warranted. Suggestion: start a new thread at Talk:Seychelles and post those "gomnt links" [sic] there, so I and other editors can see for ourselves. I, for one, am not going to go count islands at Goodle Earth, but I'll gladly accept a reliable source stating the number of islands. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rivertorch. While trying to add a new report at the bottom, you seem to have messed up the board. You may have edited an old version of the noticeboard by mistake. Please undo your last change, and then try to post your new report more carefully. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, I haven't broken the Internet in a long time! I think it's OK now. I don't suppose there'd be any support for standardizing the vastly disparate reporting methods at WP:AIV, WP:RPP, WP:AN3 and so on? Thanks for the heads-up, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Rivertorch! On the Wikipedia talk page you recently hatted and habbed a post. Please be sure the {{hab}} template goes up against the left margin after the post. Otherwise it will hat and hab all the ensuing posts. No biggee. – PAINE ELLSWORTHCLIMAX! 07:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] PS. I don't know your views on the subjects, but pro or con, let me invite you to Talk:Wikipedia#Deitalicization degrading? for comment, and as well to the RfC at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Restricted-use media list.
Whoops. As you can see, the finer points of wikimarkup are not my strong suit. Sorry! But that was a month ago—do you mean to tell me that all new comments have been hatted and habbed ever since? (Peeks shamefacedly through clenched fingers at random recent revision and cringes) (Rhetorical question—don't answer that.)
I offered my opinion about "bad images". The italicization is more difficult: I saw your change yesterday and was immediately conflicted as to whether it was a good idea. I'll see what others have to say and give it some more thought. Rivertorch (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we'll leave the wikimarkup thing alone, especially since I've messed things up a few times myself, as well. Just remember, Wikipedia is impossible to "break". The MOS at WP:ITALIC pretty much guides us to italicize the article on Wikipedia. What facinates me is the controversy over whether or not there should even be an article on Wikipedia! – PAINE ELLSWORTHCLIMAX! 22:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia "impossible to break"? Hmm . . . remember what they said about the Titanic. Interesting thought about whether WP should have an article on itself. I'm reminded of a perennial topic of discussion at Talk:Human regarding the awkwardness of humans writing an article about their own species. What if Wikipedia were written by non-Wikipedians? I'll bet there'd be licensing problems.
Food for thought: some publications do have a house style in which they set their own name in roman even if they italicize other publications' names. In other cases, they use a different typeface or boldface small caps or something for their own name. I'm not suggesting we follow suit—just noting that it's not unheard of to make an exception for oneself. Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
could you clarify what you mean by "Undid good-faith edit as undue weight. Inappropriate to use primary source in lead" please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.105.180 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Articles are supposed to be largely based on reliable secondary sources, so it's inappropriate to cherry-pick one author or one study for the lead paragraph. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. I'll be offline for several hours soon, but I encourage you to join the discussion in progress, where you'll find other editors who'll be happy to explain it (probably better than I can). Btw, please sign your posts to talk pages by typing four consecutive tildes (~~~~) or clicking on the signature link below the edit window. Rivertorch (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note for posterity: the next time anyone bitches about consensus being hard to come by, point 'em to that discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your patience in explaining the obvious is appreciated, but I have removed the edit request you closed since, in my opinion, it's nothing but trolling, and I can't remove it without also removing your friendly response (and gorgeous prose). With apologies, Drmies (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Colossal shrug. I share your opinion that it was almost certainly trolling, but sometimes I prefer to give such comments the benefit of the doubt, especially when they articulate a specific gripe about an article (however misguided that gripe may be). If I remove them, I run the risk of being accused of censorship or ownership or some such nonsense, but I can't just leave them in place and unanswered because then they provide a springboard for fresh trolls to use. Anyway, no apologies needed. I appreciate the heads-up (and the description of my prose—was it really?). Rivertorch (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rushdie's family made a move from Bombay to the new Pakistan but did not like it; he did too; he has suppressed this fact; that is why "Pakistani origins" etc is appropriate. He went to Britain as a Pakistani not as an Indian.
The present spiel on his page seems extremely self-serving. My good faith edit attempted to make it more objective. Kindly revert to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic Recorder (talk • contribs) 05:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rushdie himself,conversation reported by an interlocutor about 1974. Rushdie has been trying to get back some family property in Bombay left by his family when all of them moved to Pakistan. They were disillusioned there and thence he went to Britain. Ask him. (Plus all his stuff about being Kashmiri etc is all his own speculation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic Recorder (talk • contribs) 08:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the link above in the word source. Conversations with unnamed interlocutors in approximate years aren't exactly verifiable. (While you're at it, please follow that link as well.) If you have verifiable evidence from a reliable source that Mr. Rushdie "went to Britain as a Pakistani not as an Indian", I'd be interested to see it. Incidentally, a better place to conduct this discussion would be Talk:Salman Rushdie. And do use a signature when posting on any talk page: type four tildes (~~~~) or click on the four tildes just below the edit window. Rivertorch (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-- the entry for Rushdie as a whole remains unverifiable in many respects except from his own claims and statements -- e.g. his claim to be of Kashmiri origin. That is why the good faith edit made its corrections. The interlocutor's statement about the Rushdie family moving to Pakistan is somewhere on the net. The corrections were made, you reversed them, you asked for a reason, the reason is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic Recorder (talk • contribs) 10:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we're done talking about it. "Somewhere on the net" doesn't suffice, I'm afraid. Based on what you've said (and because I only began watching it very recently) I'll look the article over soon with an eye to adequacy of sourcing, but please realize that claims running counter to a biographical subject's own assertions about things like nationality will have to meet a fairly high bar. WP:BLP always applies in such cases, and it had better apply in spades when the subject is someone who has been on the receiving end of so much misinformation, disinformation, and worse. If you have further concerns about the article or would like to make other changes unsupported by reliable sources, please open a discussion on the article's talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook? LOL (in a mirthless sort of way). You're clearly either woefully unfamiliar with Wikipedia or are trolling me. We take our policies about content very seriously, and none more so than the policy on verifiability and its adjunct, the guideline on reliable sources. So far, I've gone out on a limb and assumed you're acting in good faith, but if you can't be bothered to learn the most basic rules about editing here, then you're wasting my time. I advised you three days ago how to sign your username; you've posted twice here since then and failed to sign both times. I linked to the reliable sources guideline four days ago and the verifiability policy three days ago, and you clearly haven't bothered to read either one. Two days ago, in two separate replies, I advised you that the appropriate place to discuss changes to the the article is the article's talk page, and yet you keep returning here to my user talk page. Three days ago, I provided you a link to WP:BLP—the policy dealing with biographical information on living persons—and you're still spouting bizarre innuendos about someone who has endured all manner of bullshit rumors (not to mention years of extreme invective and state-sponsored death threats). So you see, it really doesn't matter to me anymore whether you're here for malicious trolling purposes or are acting in good faith and are simply incompetent. At this point, I can only recommend that you either get your act together now or transfer your attentions to a web site other than Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, True I am less familiar with Wikipedia but why the aggression? Are you an owner or editor here? Good faith edits were made to the Rushdie entry to make it sound more objective and less like self-serving spiel. Do you have any evidence he is Kashmiri other than him saying so? No you don't. Nor does he. Academic Recorder (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No aggression—just a bit of annoyance that you clearly weren't paying attention to anything I was saying and a sense that perhaps I could jar you into doing so. If I offended you by coming on a little strong, I'm sorry, but I stand by what I said and I find the substance of your response just now unconstructive. For at least the third time I'm advising you that discussions about the Salman Rushdie article belong at Talk:Salman Rushdie, not on my user talk page. Simple enough. Thank you for signing your user name, anyway—that's a positive sign. Just for the record, I'll say a little more in general terms about all Wikipedia articles, and then I think we're done here.
Objectivity is often hard to come by, but neutrality is almost always possible and should be a constant goal. (Policy demands that.) Sometimes edits intended to correct "self-serving spiel" go too far in the other direction and cast aspersions on their subjects. Finding a workable balance is usually possible, but when one editor's comments are repeatedly accompanied by unsupported claims and "I didn't hear that" behavior the likelihood of success plummets. Please think twice before choosing to further lengthen this thread, okay? Rivertorch (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, I am sorry but you seem to me to be not merely dogmatic about your interpretation of Wikipedia but also relatively unaware about the facts of Rushdie's life. He is a major and controversial author who makes no secret about how much he thinks he deserves the Nobel in Literature. His self-serving spiel was corrected,in substance and emphasis, in good faith by me. You have without adequate reason deleted these good faith corrections. That says more about Wikipedia's processes than about Rushdie or me. I do not think this is the wrong forum for this discussion as my edits were reversed by you and not someone else.Academic Recorder (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry but I don't care to pursue this conversation anymore. Rivertorch (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I just updated the Mango article. It was your change that guided me to place some of the images as I did, particularly the image of the tree. I'm looking for feedback from you. Between your significant addition of the description text and the formatting changes I made, IMO the article improved quite a bit. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chango369w (talk • contribs) 15:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine. The images were sort of overwhelming things, I think, and that's better now. (Btw, it wasn't my "description text"; I simply reverted someone else's blanking.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look at that change closely enough I suppose (I can't get my head around the vandalism :s).
Thanks for the feedback. As I update, I've noticed a trend for folks to just throw in images at random without regard to how they'll render in the browser. It doesn't take a whole lot to throw the whole article out of whack. Chango369w (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit you made to Invasion of Poland#Aftermath. I believe you're questioning the citation. Follow the link for a pic of the page 62 Kursk blah blah blah (Lloyd Clark). http://postimg.org/image/6y4zrnlht/. If you still deem my light paraphrase as a misinterpretation of the text, then please feel free to share yours.EyeTruth (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my edit summary? Look at the diff. If I misinterpreted your edit summary, my apologies, but you can see well enough that I said nothing about misinterpretation and offered no opinion on the substance of your edit. Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the consensus here[6]....William 18:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I've got a bunch of towns and cities on my watchlist, and this is the first I've heard of it. I can't say I think the reasoning is especially sound—I rather agree with what Nyttend said there, and I can't imagine how we're supposed to maintain verifiability when the standard for affiliation is so low—but thanks for the link. I'm glad to know about the discussion and its conclusion. Rivertorch (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your political views. Your action was at the least irresponsible, and at worst dishonest. Cut it out, read the sources, and TAKE IT TO TALK.Ragazz (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Would you care to provide evidence to support your suggestion—which you repeated in your edit summary here—that my edit was in bad faith? If not, I would ask that you kindly retract the suggestion. I'd also be glad if you'd refrain from alluding to my presumptive political views, of which you are surely ignorant and which in any event played no role in my decision to revert your edit. And please don't SHOUT on my talk page, my friend. I'm not hard of hearing and I have done you no injury. As far as I recall, our only interaction besides my single revert was a thoroughly civil comment to you at a different article's talk page today, so I'm afraid I'm at a bit of a loss to know what has sparked such strong resentment on your part.
As for reversions and discussions, you surely know there are all sorts of good-faith reasons for reverting another contributor's additions. In my experience, it's usually a good idea if the editor adding new content or changing stable content is the one to "take it to talk" (the second sentence here is instructive on that point), but no biggie. Surely you're not suggesting I open a discussion every time I revert an edit? Rivertorch (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added: I see that you have indeed opened a thread at Talk:Environment and sexual orientation. Good show. I'll give you a pass on calling my revert a "dispicable [sic] act", but I don't think I'd better respond as long as your allegations of bad faith stand. Rivertorch (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK fine I probably over-reacted, and it wasn't my intent to attack you. Understand that I am only interested in science here. I don't believe that science should be censored under any circumstances. I do feel that many here habitually and indiscriminately revert all edits that they feel undermine their political aims. My additions to the article weren't perfect, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. No offense taken here, just briefly annoyed and mostly I wanted there to be a record in case you turned out to be less reasonable.Ragazz (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that you didn't intend to attack me. I won't respond in detail to everything you just said, but I'm make one brief comment and then offer a bit of unsolicited advice. (Take it or leave it, as you like.) This isn't about the censorship of science; it's about avoiding undue weight, synthesis, and an overreliance on primary sources—all policy-based considerations that must be taken into account if our science-related articles are to reflect the prevailing consensus within the relevant fields of inquiry. The assumption of good faith should always be one's starting point and one should never make insinuations to the contrary without being prepared to back them up with actual evidence. Rivertorch (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steady. The tide is turning and their proposal is going nowhere fast. I've decided not to enter the fray again because it's very clear that neither the prime movers behind the nor those who have joined their cause (including more than one who really should know better) would pay the slightest attention to anything I say. That said, I have to admit that after reading some of the comments a paraphrase along the lines of "Will no one rid me of these ___ ___" does resonate with me. (You fill in the blanks. Mentally, of course.) Even though my sympathies have always lain with TB in that particular dust-up. Rivertorch (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to finding it amusing to be told I was bullying. There are times when one must despise the alleged wisdom of crowds,, especially when the cord goes forum shopping. Ah, "WHen the going gets tough, the tough go shopping!" Rememebvr, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. I got that off a T shirt. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I keep saying I'm done with it, and then I say something else in the vain hope that I will break through to someone. When will I learn? Rivertorch (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This cute puppy has been given to you for your recent amazing performance. Don't forget to train it.Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, thank you. I'm not sure I requested a puppy, but it's sooooo cute and I can't turn it away. What my cat will have to say about it, I can't begin to imagine. Rivertorch (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
my talk was removed by 'Aleksa Lukic'. ask him. i forgot what i wrote. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 117.197.18.228 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote the following: "i saw your post. now tell me one thing, how can I PROVIDE THE LINK to the book which is not present on net? doesn't mean it doesn't happened? why do you have to use your own brain, if you don't have? you should have atleast have talked to me before restoration!!!!!!" Why it was removed is beyond me, since it seemed like a perfectly fine comment. I would have allowed it to stay if you had posted it on my talk page. By the way, if an edit of yours is changed/removed and you want to see it, you can see it in the "History" section of the page. Go to the difference of the edit you made and hit "diff." Also, you should sign your messages with four tildes (~). Lugia2453 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i saw your post. now tell me one thing, how can I PROVIDE THE LINK to the book which is not present on net? doesn't mean it doesn't happened? why do you have to use your own brain, if you don't have? you should have atleast have talked to me before restoration!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.18.228 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I'm restoring the above comment because buried in the incivility is a legitimate question and I have no idea if the person who wrote it would ever see my reply if I answered on the IP's talk page. Many thanks to the talk page watchers and/or new page patrollers who reverted. I do appreciate it.)
You misunderstood. No one asked you to provide any link. As my note to you stated, you removed maintenance templates in this edit without fixing the underlying problem or explaining why the templates were unneeded. The templates requested citations. Although citations often do include links, they are not the same thing as links. Citations (sometimes called references) are footnotes allowing the reader to verify that content in an article is supported by reliable sources and not based on personal experience or flights of fancy. You can read about the different kinds of citations and how to use them on this guideline page. In the future, please avoid making references to other editors' brains or alleged lack thereof; it's very rude and we have a policy against it. If you have any other questions and are willing to ask them politely, I'd be more than happy to answer them if I can. Rivertorch (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• hugarheimur 14:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, no problem—I'm always forgetting to change that template parameter, so I'm glad to return the favor once in a while. Rivertorch (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Rivertorch (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
_in_slow_internet1.jpg)
Even though my sympathies have always lain with TB in that particular dust-up. Rivertorch (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. Rivertorch (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
