User talk:Rivertorch

Welcome to my talk page.
Constructive criticism, kudos, and questions are always gladly received.
Please assume good faith and be polite, and I promise to return the favor!

I find that conversations are more easily followed if they're all in one place. And ping-pong is no fun without a paddle. Therefore,

If you leave a message on my talk page, I'll reply to it here (on my talk page).

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there (on your talk page).

(If you'd prefer to do it a different way, I won't object violently.)

Please do not use the Talkback template here unless I have not replied within a reasonable interval (i.e., ≤ 72 hrs).
If I commented on your talk page, rest assured that it will remain on my watchlist for at least a couple of weeks.

My email address changes from time to time.
To make sure I receive your email, always use the link in the toolbox on the left of this page (and ping me here).

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

Account activation codes have been emailed.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 04:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PC or not PC

Either way, thanks much for your comments ... I think they're helping the process tremendously. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're right. Thank you for the kind words. Rivertorch (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard disclaimer: if a person responds to a comment and then they get hounded with "well what about ...", it may become unpleasant and they may stop responding, which is not what I want. So stop me at any time. I agree with the gist of the argument you just made ... but I take it as a note of caution, not a stopper. I mean, if I applied for a job at a newspaper, and they said okay, you can start working on tomorrow's edition, I wouldn't say, "I'm sorry, that's just not interesting enough for me, I wanted to work on the real version of the paper, today's edition." But that underscores that the newbies have to actually believe that the version that everyone is working on together has to actually get published reasonably soon, with minimal editorial interference from The Powers That Be. I'm not sure how we convince people of that; statistics showing that that's what usually happens might help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I see what you mean, although your comparison is a bit shaky. At a newspaper, even the most experienced reporters and editors are happy to do advance work on tomorrow's edition. Serious journalism, such as investigative stories, requires all manner of tasks that provide no quick gratification (and often enough turn out to be blind alleys). Also, I can't imagine what sort of newspaper employee could expect little interference from The Powers That Be. Having some familiarity with both sides of the demarcation line between reporters and editors, I can assure you that "editorial interference" is a normal and positive thing at a newspaper. To put it in a more apt, if tortured, metaphor, the equivalent of PC at a newspaper would be something like this: strangers read over the reporter's shoulder and periodically elbow in and delete what he or she has just written. Rivertorch (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds good to me. Still, I'd be surprised if you don't agree with my "but that underscores ..." sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It's easy to say "don't understaff it" but not so easy to do.": I'll reply to this one here also, if that's okay. (My responses in all discussions tend to be spartan, writing something that long was almost painful! I want to try to avoid adding to it except when someone says something that indicates a flaw or something I need to clarify.) I think there's a reason for my optimism that not everyone is going to share: you would think given our resources that the pool of article reviewers we have (at GAN, etc.) couldn't possibly cover all the articles under review in all processes ... but somehow we manage. I think the questions coming up on PC pages will be a subset of the questions we encounter at article reviews ... except instead of having to cover every aspect of the article, we will in general only have to wait until one issue is resolved (and hopefully by normal editing of the PC page by the community rather than by the reviewer), not 20 issues. The strategies that reviewers use to cover all the bases are manifold; it's impossible to sketch out how it all works here (in fact, I couldn't even begin to tell you, there's so much going on). I can only point and say: at the end of the day, we've got everything done that needs doing, and article reviewing is a much, much bigger job than PC-reviewing a single article could ever be. But I can understand how people who haven't really dug in and seen the magic work up close and personal might have diferent expectations; the workload and experiences of many admins might incline a person toward pessimism (and they might be right, too). - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, a procedural note. While I value your insights and am always glad to hear from you on my talk page, I think that at least some of what you've said might be more helpful at the RfC talk page, where more people would see it. It's up to you if you want to copy any of it there. The RfC itself is over, so what better time for real discussion to begin! (irony)

I need to head out the door very soon, so I'll make this brief for now. I think that "reviewer" in the PC sense has nothing to do with "reviewer" in the article assessment sense, and I frankly don't see why it should. Determining whether a given edit is constructive or not requires a set of skills rather different from those used for evaluating an entire article, it seems to me. As far as I can tell, having never been involved in it, the latter is a specialized process requiring significant attention span, while in most cases the former can be done with pretty fair accuracy in mere seconds by anyone with a basic understanding of the core content policies. Rivertorch (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that the two senses of "reviewer" don't have to have anything to do with each other ... but I hope, nevertheless, that people with wide-ranging skill sets sign up to do some reviewing. It will give us opportunities to net more new users when they meet knowledgeable Wikipedians, and it will model good behavior for other PC-reviewers, and it will lessen the chances that we make the error of rejecting any form of PC when some form could have worked, with better reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I'm not sure how many editors active in article assessment would be interested in devoting much of their time to patrolling pending changes beyond their own watchlists. And I'm far from sure that rejecting any form of PC would be an error. You might as well know: at this point, I'm hopeful that PC won't be implemented or, failing that, that consensus will emerge before too long an interval to turn it off again. Having said that, I should probably hasten to add that I'm willing to do what I can to avoid its being a total disaster however long it's with us. If it must be with us, that is. But I don't see much likelihood of its being a net positive, no matter how skillfully we blunt its rough edges. Rivertorch (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Phobia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Jami son^Guestbook_Userboxes 09:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Jamison's edit. - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. "Asses". Much obliged! Rivertorch (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

record producer

Hi Rivertorch - thanks for the positive comments - sorry I didn't have time to explain in the markup notes but I'll add sources as soon as I can - I was bascially just writing that up quickly in my break times at work today - I have sources at home I will refer to - I just don't have the details handy. Thasnk for your interest.

cheers Dunks (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thanks for your quick reply. Rivertorch (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Here's to a great weekend, happy editing, and for lending a hand :-D SgtMayDay (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm . . . (wiping foam away) . . . delicious. Guess I'd better log out before I finish it. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

FYI: This user made a pretty good start with Wikipedia:Shoot it early I think. It deserves comments, promotion, attention and expansion by other users I think. History2007 (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a copyedit, for sure. It does look interesting. I'll try to give it some time early tomorrow. Rivertorch (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. There is no rush, it is a long term project really. History2007 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, because I'm not quite "here" tonight. I'd rather give it full attention later than partial attention now. Rivertorch (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that note I received no response about user attrition.... A sign or user attrition? I have this very uneasy feeling that more and more experienced users are packing up and leaving, and no one even has any clear idea of the extent of the loss. I have seen some good users just shrug their shoulders and walk after several years, and the new users I see are far too oriented towards COI edits, given that Wikipedia is now even a better promotional vehicle than Craigslist. I managed to talk Aleksandar Simić to cut back to size, but Sheela Murthy is so promotional, I did not even bother to complain or tag it... It would have taken too much effort. And then there was this never ending COI issue at Bell's Theorem. All of this absorbs effort that could have gone into fixing articles, but we do seem to be losing, and the tide is turning against quality, towards self promotion now. That was why I think some model of article degradation needs to be built, so some policy can be based on it. Wikipedia is not a ghost town yet,... but.... History2007 (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having followed you here from the help desk, I did a quick and dirty copyedit of the first few sections of the essay. It needs lots of work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I do not mind. We may have to pay rent to Rivertorch for using his talk page, however... kidding. As on the essay talk page, I think it is a good idea, and apart from copy editing, needs further improvement. Many companies have detailed models of "lifecycle" for both their products and customers. I think at some point (the sooner the better) we should engage part of the community to get an idea of a "page lifecycle", where the page starts as a stub then grows and improves then eventually may either stabilizes or degrade and fall into disrepair. What Incnis Mrsi started in that essay was the beginning of a "page degradation model". It needs thought but eventually Wikipedia needs that, and will help clarify how pages grow and flourish or die a slow death. Not all pages fall into disprepair however. I have seen pages that continue to remain high quality and in good shape. The key is to figure out how to make that happen more often. Eventually, I also hope to see a "editor lifecycle model" where editors start with many hopes and ideals, then gradually meet the realities of conflicting opinions, get a few 3O decisions that upset them, shrug their shoulders and walk away disillusioned. But that should probably happen later, after we have figured out the page growth and degradation issues. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss it here. (Rent, while optional, is much appreciated. Semi-kidding . . . couldn't we issue wikicurrency or something?) If I get more than ten uninterrupted minutes sometime soon, I might even join in. Rivertorch (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In time Wikicurrency will arrive I think. Barnstars are some type of wikistoneage coin, I think. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a user subpage full of barnstars plus $10 will buy you a calorie-laden oversized coffee drink at Starbucks. Tell you what, I do think Incnis Mrsi is onto something. Reading the essay actually made me feel guilty because of how often I see "degradation" without lifting a finger to put a stop to it. It's a delicate balance, really. Fixing good-faith edits that degrade articles can be quite time-consuming, and I often don't have the time, but at the same time simply undoing the offending edit might be discouraging to a generally competent newbie who made it in a moment of carelessness. There are days when I find myself undoing lots of edits that I'd feel much better about modifying. It's an even worse dilemma when a given edit improves an article in one place and degrades it in another: if the degradation is serious and I don't have time to go in and manually undo that part of the edit, all I can do is undo the whole thing, say why in the edit summary, and hope the other editor will come back, read my edit summary, and put the good part back in. Rivertorch (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is on to something, for sure. As I said on the talk there, what needs to be done is to build one of those fishbone diagrams that show the multiple elements that contribute to degradation. I could do that, but it would be just based on my experiences with pages, and getting a wider perspective is necessary, say from 3-5 editors. More than 5 people in the early stages will make it hard to do. How do we get 3 more people? Incnis Mrsi said semi-retired, but if he continues, the two of us, then we need 2 more people. Fuhghettaboutit plus one more? History2007 (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I can think of several possibles. How do you see the five of us going about it? I'm not much of a diagram-builder. Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as much a diagram as a list. Here are my first rough suggestions for the causes:

Main 2-3 authors retire, gradual IP edits add WP:OR.
A new POV-rich editor arrives and changes and debates
COI-driven editor comes in and makes changes when no one is watching the page
Article is technology oriented and gets outdated.
etc....

So how do you think degradation happens? What are examples of articles that have degraded? How did it happen? History2007 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it some thought. Off the top of my head, degradation happens in myriad ways. I'm sure I can come up with examples and laboriously analyze how it happened, but is that sort of anecdotal evidence going to be helpful? Rivertorch (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even in more complex cases such as manufacturing, there are only a few key causes, e.g. Machine (technology),Method (process),Material,Man Power, Measurement, Mother Nature. And just making those types of lists has made a tremendous difference there. It does not need to be perfect, any help will be help. History2007 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then. Let me see what I can come up with in the next day or two. If you're still looking for someone else to help with this, what about either User:Dank or User:Slakr? Rivertorch (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please ask them both, as well as Blade, if you like given that he is interested in these things and is very logical. We could also ask Fuhghettaboutit and then with a 50% acceptance ratio if 2 out of the 4 accept we are fine. Even if all 4 accept it is still OK. But beyond that will be too many as a start. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your idea, so I think you should ask them. I just put the names forward as folks who probably would have something constructive to add if they happened to be interested. Re Blade, I wouldn't bother any of the RfC closers right now; they have enough to deal with, including very silly distractions. Rivertorch (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I asked all 3 users. History2007 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History2007, there are relatively few Wikipedians with the insight, experience and reputation needed to help in a "managerial" role with really serious problems. The rest of us are most effective working within one of the many successful subcommunities or wikiprojects. Your article-writing skills are really substantial; you'd fit right in with any of the "reviewing" communities or with any of the history-related wikiprojects. I think you'll find that a lot of FAC reviewers sharing your horror of all the crap they come across on-wiki, and we'd love to have you as a reviewer, in any capacity and with any specialties.

Having said that, as soon as the Pending Changes closing statements are issued, we'll really need some clerk-ish help getting people to talk and organizing the results of the discussions, and if you want to help with that, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the Follow-up thread at the end of my talk page? I was successfully talked out of doing an Rfa.... so I am not sure of what there will be along those paths. History2007 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One big point about attrition that I've seen in a few cases is that, after a few years, editors want to return to "real life", particularly if they developed the content they came here initially to build. I don't know how to keep them from doing so, but maybe trying to create some sort of annual reunion where some of them can come back for a brief time, maybe around summer vacation, and offer pointers about the articles they left some time earlier?

I know a lot of articles where, unfortunately, POV pushing and incivility by the POV pushers push good editors away. We might need a quicker trigger finger on some articles, but it's sometimes hard to get other editors involved.

My only real hope for the continued quality of the content is a broadened Pending Changes, which might restrict editing of good articles, like maybe MILHIST B-grade articles that are unlikely to get substantial changes often, like those about the dead, major institutions, and the like, to established editors. That would reduce the number of such edits, and make it easier for a few more old hands, not necessarily experts, to get involved. Maybe. If we offered hints to new editors about articles that don't exist yet, and maybe give them an idea for sources available, that might help keep some newbies too. I do hope something substantial comes from the Pending Changes decision, though. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the essay is on the right track really as to why articles degrade. I think it's mostly to do with resources (the lack thereof) coupled with the sheer massiveness of what we've undertaken. Each person only has so much time, only so many articles that can be on their watchlist and be kept track of, and were drowning in a sea of kludge where the diamonds are so buried beneath the weight of poor content and the massive resources needed that are siphoned off to managing that losing battle that it is impossible to keep the diamonds shining. We would need a sea change to fix this though. I've talked about what to do about this before but I know it's so far away from anything that could ever gain consensus that it's utterly unrealistic to even broach; it's this: we must free up our resources by getting rid of the kludge, so we can see the forest for the trees. A very unpopular idea; to many, sacrilege. I would have us put in place something like Wikipedia:Requests for verification and Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles and start winnowing all the thousands upon thousands (maybe over a million) of unsourced or barely sourced articles sitting around, inevitably, most of the time, full of misinformation. Every proposal for making a pragmatic deletion process based on lack of sources has been shot down though. Anyway, it may be a contributing factor but I don't think most people have the problem of not pulling the trigger when they see bad edits. We degrade because we can't focus on quality while we're always digging our way out of a hole.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the essay, I see it as being more about how, rather than why, articles degrade. One of its most insightful points, I think, is about earlier, damaging edits being masked by subsequent, constructive ones made by users who don't check the edit history. Honestly, who does check the edit history every time they make a small correction or undo a single problematic edit? I sure don't. I could, but then there'd be other things I wouldn't have time to do. Asking editors to diligently scrutinize page histories is basically asking for a sea change in the way lots of us spend our time here, and I'm not sure it's feasible. Anyway, you're quite right—each of us has limited time, and there's no way to keep track of the whole encyclopedia. About twice a year, I dump about half of my watchlist because it has grown absolutely unmanageable, and I do so knowing full well that many of the articles I'm removing aren't well watched. In some cases I may have constituted the entire line of defense against an onslaught of bad edits, and unless some random new page patroller happens to be in the right place at the right time, it's a lost cause. But it doesn't even take a shrinking watchlist—just taking a couple days off is all that's needed for degradation to enter an article. How many times do I find myself saying, "Now how the hell did that get in there?" Well, it slipped in under the radar, and the radar is inherenty faulty; that's how. (Some might say I've just made the case for flagged revisions, but I believe that would just be trading one set of problems for another, even worse set.)

As a variation on your idea about a "pragmatic deletion process", how about, instead of deleting unsourced articles, shifting them into a new namespace where various individual editors and WikiProjects could source them, merge them, or delete them at a measured pace? To unregistered users, they could be either completely inaccessible or displayed in read-only form (and, if the latter, clearly marked as unsourced and potentially unreliable). This approach would have several advantages, I think, not the least of which that it probably would be more palatable to the community.

John Carter, we'll have to agree to disagree about pending changes, but your point about its being hard to get other editors involved reminded me of an idea that's been rattling around in my head for a while. I haven't mentioned it yet because it's still in embryonic form (and would probably elicit groans from one end of the wiki to the other). In short, it would involve the creation of yet another noticeboard (I know, I know!) for editors who are simply looking for another pair of eyes on an article. It wouldn't be about resolving disputes or reporting policy violations—just provide a mechanism to get someone else to take a look. There are various situations where this would be helpful. For instance, even longtime editors with unblemished records run the risk of being blocked (or, almost as bad, admonished in dehumanizing tones) for "edit warring" to keep articles free of absolute, irredeemable crap (added in the best of faith, of course). There are various accepted and proper ways to handle such cases, of course—I usually start by asking for semiprotection, but the bar is so low for autoconfirmed status that it's often pointless—but in most cases all that's really needed is just another editor or two to watch the article and revert the bad edits.

I'm rambling and ranting, so enough for now. Thanks to all who have commented. Sorry, History2007, if it's all gotten a bit off topic. One idea leads to another. Rivertorch (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the bar is fairly low for autoreviewer. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more active work to remove it on one or more noticeboards, like for one serious instance of POV pushing. Regarding getting another pair of eyes, that can be problematic, because, even if you get one, they might be less than competent to deal with the problem. I got a message regarding Soka Gakkai on my user talk page awhile ago along these lines. It scares me a little that I am one of the few active editors regarding Buddhism, which I don't know that well. And, in this case, it seems to me that both of the "combatants" are taken a wrong position. If you might want to get involved there, I certainly wouldn't object. We do try to have the various WikiProjects available for additional eyes, but in a lot of them there aren't that many active editors. If you think I would ever be of use to you in such a regard, though, let me know. I can't promise that I can do much, but I can try to do what I can. John Carter (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I may take you up on it someday. I have taken a peek at Soka Gakkai but am totally unfamiliar with the subject matter of the article, so it would be pointless for me to try to make an impartial appraisal of what's going on. If I don't understand the topic well enough to assess the dispute, my involvement probably wouldn't be a net plus. Rivertorch (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I have not responded. I was working on this report. The discussion above has started to generate valuable items in my view, and I will try to categorize them in a day or two. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush. Take your time. (I do!) Rivertorch (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American cuisine

I set a poll up here, please contribute. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You preface the section by saying the poll is to "to see what consensus we have" and ask participants to "keep the comments to a minimum". What you seem to be implying is that you want people just to vote, and I don't think that's a very good way of determining consensus. The RfC is in progress—why not let it run its course and then ask for an uninvolved party to close it? Rivertorch (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the answers are all over the place in a massive wall of text and making heads or tales of it is a mess. The RfC is gone astray and I am trying to get it back on course. I tweaked the heading to make my reasoning more clear--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As RfCs go, this one isn't especially massive, and I doubt that any experienced, uninvolved editor would have much trouble sifting through it. Nonetheless, I'll go ahead and say something in your poll. Rivertorch (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for chiming in. My main issue is keeping the RfC on track and on subject. This is an attempt to stay on that track and maintain the focus of the poll. I agree that we should leave it in place for thirty days and that an uninvolved party should be responsible for closing it. I will post this in the preface. Thank you for bringing these points up. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:American cuisine

You can still vote in the poll here. It was closed by a guy who does not want a picture under any circumstances and is even willing to cheat to get that done. The closure was part of his POV-actions on this template. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that comment is particularly helpful. While I wish Viriditas hadn't unilaterally decided to close the poll, I also wish that Jeremy hadn't unilaterally decided to open it in the first place—an action which looked quite a lot like interfering with the natural progression of an RfC. I'm assuming good faith of everyone involved thus far, including you, whose unilateral decision to undo Viriditas was had the effect of nuking my comment (although that's apparently been fixed now). Now what's the common thread between these three actions? They're all unilateral. "Bold" is a good thing in articles but not so good in the midst of talk page disagreements. Better in these cases to slow down and try to find agreement each step of the way, I do believe. Rivertorch (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bora Bora external link

Hi Rivertorch. Regarding [1] I have no burden one way or the other whether or not the "How to get to Bora Bora" link is in the article or not. I didn't add it to the article, just moved it to an appropriate location (if the link is kept.) I've been repeatedly removing spam links from that article. I let this one stay because there is no advertising on the site, and it lists numerous, unrelated services regarding travel to this site, for which the site receives not compensation that I can tell. Therefore I deemed it to have further useful information potentially useful to a reader not included in article, but also not particularly useful to an encyclopedia article itself. I'll leave it to you whether to re-insert or not. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for helping to keep linkspam out of the article; it's a neverending struggle. There is always room for disagreement on how high the bar should be for such links. As for this one, it's true that it's not blatantly, egregiously commercial like many of the others that you and I have removed. However, all it contains is a list of airlines plus a helicopter outfit and two boat service providers, with no way to tell whether the entries are comprehensive or reliable or presented free of compensation, and a prominent field for capturing the visitor's email address with the entreaty ("Join Now!"). In other words, it fails to provide verifiably trustworthy information of an encyclopedic nature as an adjunct to the article, which is what an external link should do. That's the way I see it, anyway. If you disagree strongly, I won't object to your adding it again, but I think it's a slippery slope. Rivertorch (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent and sound reasoning. I had missed the "Join Now" section. As such, I agree this link shouldn't appear. Perhaps I have become too desensitized because of all the unbelievably blatant advertising sites I've removed from various articles. Thank *you* for your vigilance. 78.26 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Desensitization is a risk, but so is oversensitization, and I'm never sorry to be second-guessed on such things. If your watchlist has room for one more entry, you might help keep an eye on Seychelles, another one that gets stealthy links added from time to time. Rivertorch (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For helping keep things cool at Template talk:American cuisine, I award you this Barnstar. You have a nice way about you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! That means a lot to me. Rivertorch (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial policy about parenthetical disambiguation.

In Wikipedia talk:Article titles#The disambiguation policy does not respect the naming criteria I started a crucial discussion about the controversial policy that some people (improperly) uses to reject the RM Musical scale → Scale (music). I would love to have your support. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look but would need to study it in some depth before commenting intelligently. Given RL demands and preexisting on-wiki priorities, I'm doubtful I'll get back to it soon, but you never know. . . . Rivertorch (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postman

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at Jenova20's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Homophobia

Hi Rivertorch, just wondering if you had any more ideas on this since it shows no sign of stopping and a certain editor has a case of WP:IDHT, which has lasted around (?) 4 months now. Thanks and have a nice day/evening Jenova20 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at it today but was disappointed to see on my watchlist that it was continuing as of yesterday. While I think you're right about IDHT and said so some while ago, it takes two to tango. He has said repeatedly that he was done with the discussion for now, and has indicated he'd try to come up with something in the way of sources, yet people keep responding. Why??? Not everything requires a response. He's not disrupting the article, so my sense of it is let him have the last word. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion actually appears to be attracting more new contributors to it, with none agreeing with the editor in question. It's not good though and it really is just a campaign against homophobia as there's no similar discussion at the Islamophobia or semiticism articles. The problem is do we watch this go on and consume and transform the talk page into a forum so that it cannot as easily be used to improve the article, or do we have other options?

I know you suggested leaving it alone but more contributors are showing up and it just might not let up or get any better.

Thanks and have a nice day/evening Jenova20 18:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's been nothing new for over 48 hours now. We can't prevent random editors who happen along from joining the fray, nor can we prevent someone from replying to them if they do. But we can opt out of further discussion if we choose, and that's going to be my choice for the time being. Four weeks from now, there needs to be either evidence or a substantive new argument; otherwise, barring an RfA that results in a finding to the contrary, the discussion will be closed with consensus suggesting no WP:NPOV violation, as far as I'm concerned. No reason to cross that bridge before we come to it, of course.

Incidentally, one of the reasons I'm trying to be exceptionally patient is that sometimes—albeit rarely—one seemingly tendentious editor turns out to have a valid point that they're just not expressing very well. It has happened before that I've been persuaded by an argument I initially dismissed out of hand but later came to find compelling. The chances of that occurring here seem remote, but it's not inconceivable. In any event, we're not talking about an SPA or a newbie but rather an established editor who makes constructive contributions in other areas, so I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, just as I'd hope he gave it to me if the roles somehow were reversed.

I like your "round in circles" template, btw. Six years on the wiki, and I never noticed that one before. Rivertorch (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that's the charm of Wikipedia. There's always more stuff to learn and more you haven't seen before. I'm staying off Talk:Homophobia as we agreed. You have a nice day/evening Rivertorch Jenova20 08:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Sigma

Sorry you have been dragged into this mess over the Kappa Sigma organization Wiki page. The basic problem is that Kappa Sigma claims that it has roots in a 15th century organization in Italy. In the early editions of Baird's fraternity Manuel, the name of that organization is mentioned. In more modern versions it is not. The problem is that Kappa Sigma today considers that information a secret. However, because Baird's Manuel is part of the public record and in Google's books, anyone who wants to find the information can find it.

A year or so ago, an editor wanted to ensure that all of Kappa Sigma's secrets were on the page, and most of those were deleted as not properly sourced. However, as part of the consensus that was attempted, the name of the 15th century order was inserted because it was properly referenced and was part of what the fraternity claims is part of its traditional founding. --Enos733 (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I find the whole thing incredibly silly. Members of an fraternity ham-handedly trying to purge Wikipedia of "secrets" by edit warring (thus calling attention to the material they'd like hidden), emailing OTRS with semi-literate requests that run afoul of basic policy . . . these people are nominally adults, right? And university students? Their behavior doesn't exactly reflect well on their organization. Anyway, I've replied to your post on the AfD page. The key is having enough people watching the article to ensure that those following consensus don't get caught in the 3RR trap. If the content disappears for hours or even days before being reinserted, it's no big deal. Rivertorch (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request on list of micronations Talk page

Sorry for the late response, I hope you can accept this apology. Frills aside, I would like to note that the very definition of micronation means that it is obscure and relatively unknown. By the way, I have now posted stuff on wikia, and they welcome me there.

Sidenote: I spelled Wyhzette wrong. it is W-y-h-z-e-t-t-e. Also, google results with the heading 'Paul's Blog Herald' are related to my micronation, which, I must say bluntly, proves you wrong in your assumption that many articles are not related to my mircronation. And if you are right, what of it? I am considered notable enough on the Micronations Wiki. I hope I was not to blunt or deconstructive in my criticism. Kranton54 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Kranton54[reply]

Hi, Kranton. My assertion wasn't wrong; it applied to a search I ran based on your misspelling. In any event, my response was based largely on the question of notability, a guideline which enjoys broad consensus and which I was enforcing in considering your request. If Wyhzette meets that guideline, then it is eligible for its own Wikipedia article. And if it has its own article, it's eligible for inclusion at List of micronations. I'm sure you can imagine how quickly such "list of" articles would grow out control if such limits weren't in place.

Please don't be offended if Wikipedia's ideas of notability differ from your own. This happens to almost everyone and is just a fact of life around here. You might take a look at Notability in Wikipedia (note: it's an article, not a guideline or policy page) for a broad overview of the subject. Rivertorch (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand now. Thanks. However, when I started reading the notability article, it mentioned that blogs were not acceptable sources of info. In this case, Wyhzette's only reliable sources of information come from the Wiki for MicroNations which in turn is linked to the first reliable source, my blog. Can you please help?

Exodus International

Hi Rivertorch. Sorry to draw you into this but words couldn't express how much i would appreciate your oversight on this article while Lionelt is working there to remove anything he doesn't agree with under the guise of copyediting or BLP violation. Thanks in advance and hopefully you can be a help here. Have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]