This page is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it.
Zimbabwe Human Rights
Hi
I noticed you made some changes regarding the section about the failed Coup in 2007, I don't think 4980 were executed and 7000 arrested, I think it was 480 and 700 were arrested, I found a source online from a Human Rights watch said the figures, maybe I should find the link to show you, I am trying and learning with Wikipedia as you know I have received lots of warnings so I don't want to change this. Amy foster (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amy foster, if you add or change the content of any article, you must cite a reliable source that allows readers to verify that the new content is correct. Human Rights Watch tends to be a very reliable source, but it's not enough to read it or tell me about it; you must cite it. See this guideline for how to do that. This help page may also be useful.
Two more requests from me: please start using edit summaries and stop marking non-minor edits as minor.
If you follow the advice above and are very careful, you should be able to become a responsible editor. If you don't, you're likely headed for a block because even if you mean well, other editors will get fed up with cleaning up after you. I will note, however, that some of the warnings you've received have been for vandalism and suspected abusive sockpuppetry. If you've engaged in either of those behaviors, it's a wonder you weren't blocked long ago. Please take care. RivertorchFIREWATER16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
...for your editing of the Vagina article. My opinion is that it flows more easily and I am a big fan of grammar. The article is better because of your work. If you want to edit my user and talk page, I would be proud to have it proofreaded by you and so that others think that I write English real good. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 00:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence was not serious. The first two sentences were serious and sincere. But I am still sincerely appreciative of your editing of the Vagina article. Sometimes I think I am humorous when I am not. Sorry for the confustion. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 15:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on the Vagina talk page. I inserted the content that you posted with the supporting references. The major change I did was to list the causes in order from the most common to the least common. This resulted in the pessary content being deleted because it is not a common cause. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 21:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rivertorch, I figured it was a minor entry, small enough to pass. On the other article, on Erdos's article, it has the same image, with that caption mentioning the Erdos number. scope_creep (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been added and then removed from the article a whole lot of times, by multiple editors. No one has bothered to make the case for it on the talk page yet. RivertorchFIREWATER16:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bears Ears
It is intellectually dishonest and blatantly subjective and biased to label President Trump's downsizing of Bears Ears as "controversially" reduced, but to label President Obama's creation of the Monument as "established" rather than "controversially established". Why the hypocrisy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.178.103.142 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is intellectually dishonest and blatantly subjective and biased to label President Trump's downsizing of Bears Ears as "controversially" reduced, but to label President Obama's creation of the Monument as "established" rather than "controversially established". Why the hypocrisy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.178.103.142 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm afraid I'm not especially interested in your false equivalencies, but you're welcome to seek consensus for your edit by opening a discussion at Talk:Bears Ears National Monument. If you do that, please post it only once, and under a new section heading. Be prepared to cite reliable sources to support what you say. And be sure too add a signature and timestamp to your post by typing four tildes (~~~~). RivertorchFIREWATER03:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (2)
I don't want to 'gush' but I couldn't be more delighted with your final version and insertion of my proposed content into the Vagina article. I'm not convinced that editing should be this difficult, but you were gracious and able to resolve the issue. I want to apologize for taking up so much of your time and I don't take it for granted. Perhaps you could hand off the baton to another editor who is interested in helping to moderate the process of improving the article for the GA review. You've given so much of your time already, I don't want to presume that you will have as much for future discussions. Thank you again. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 22:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank you for raising manual of style issues at WikiProject LGBT Studies. These are big issues which affect global conversation of LGBT topics. Wikipedia is highly influential as many people's introduction to LGBT+ issues. In general wiki content is highly accessible as compared to other sources, but wiki's LGBT+ content is even more influential because it is more often people's only source of information.
These issues are not just for English Wikipedia but affect everyone. There is not a well developed international consortium of wiki editors in the LGBT+ space, but there is a forum at meta:Wikimedia LGBT+ to convene the conversation. If you have big ideas then consider speaking out there as well. Blue Rasberry (talk)20:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Blue Rasberry. I'm not much of a coffee drinker but I do love the aroma, so I'll content myself with sniffing the cup.
As you probably know, I signed on to Wikimedia LGBT+ years ago. Unfortunately, I have less free time than I used to, and I rarely get around to looking at anything beyond en.wp. I wonder if some kind of notification system could be set up for pinging the people on the list at their home wikis when there's something there on Meta that could use more participation. I'm certainly open to posting something there if I think it will help. RivertorchFIREWATER06:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban
Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:
It has been requested that the title of this page be changed to User stfu:Rivertorch. Please see the relevant discussion* on the discussion page. Do not move the page until the discussion has reached consensus (preferably with lots of drama en route!) for the change and is closed (controversially, by the sock of an involved user who is site-banned). * which doesn't exist because the rather poor joke would become tedious if it were carried that far
Hi, saw your note about my wording on the RfC. Apologies; it's been years since I've filed an RfC, and obviously I'm a little rusty on the "brief, neutral statement" part. OhNoitsJamieTalk16:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, OhNoitsJamie. As a matter of fact, I hesitated to mention it, but given that I've been bitching and moaning about it in other places, I couldn't in good conscience let it pass with no comment at all. It's something I've really only noticed recently, and I'm pretty sure that anyone who pored through my contributions from years past would find I was guilty of it, too. For what it's worth, I don't think it's terribly important in an RfC like the one at Talk:Tattoo. In RfCs with significant implications for applying policy across the project, it's critical. Or so I think. Mine may be a minority opinion. RivertorchFIREWATER16:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Screen-filling, flashing message for all new users
Martin, you took the words right out of my mouth! (Except I was going to say it in English for fear of sounding pretentious. ) Noyster, I had not heard of this initiative. It sounds like an excellent idea, but I notice that thus far it's strangely lacking in discussing the issue of what Wikipedia is and is not vis-à-vis new articles. I rarely look at anything on Meta, but I'll try and check back there over the weekend and maybe comment on the talk page. You know, the other thing that occurs to me is that I fear there's a whole generation many of whom have never so much as seen a paper encyclopedia in their life. For years, I've been reminding people that we're an encyclopedia, but what if there are millions of people who have only the vaguest idea of what that means? RivertorchFIREWATER05:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounding pretentious? Moi?? But I do like a bit of meatloaf now and then ... 07:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
As an irredeemably insular North American, I had never heard of Brian Sewell before. Oh my, what a sad person he was. Btw, I did start to link "pretentious" to the relevant video clip—you obviously know the one I mean—but desisted just in case anyone officious was following you around. (The wahls halve ears, after all, as evinced by artists, not critics.) RivertorchFIREWATER14:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His article might make him sound sad. But dear Brian was actually quite entertaining, mostly being a complete parody of himself. YT is awash with clips, but I'd recommend "Clash of the Art Titans" or perhaps "Five Minutes With: Brian Sewell" (if you can actually last that long). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I seldom log in for changes, because there are too many trolls
I did note that you reverted the Gordon Ramsay edit, and I was pleased
to note that Matilda got her own page. If that's the unreliable source, well...
The "extraneous" (TMI) info is going to eventually get entered, as did the Megan
footnote about the London Marathon. Nothing I add here has less than two sources,
and a lot more is in here that no longer even has ONE good source link.
No hard feelings, but Jack Ramsay may feel otherwise. Dfoofnik (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
PS Where I usually toil, there is a premium on 'independent research'...[reply]
Well, it took some digging, but I think you mean this. It happened ten months ago, I had no recollection of it at all, and I no longer watch that page. Sorry. And I'm not sure what you mean by 'independent research'; if that's much like original research, it's not a good idea around here. Happy editing! RivertorchFIREWATER16:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snowballs melt on clear and sunny days but if really you want, we can put it in a freezer
Honestly I just don't think "Gay genocide in Chechnya" has a snowball's chance in hell of winning so I didnt include it. I didn't expect this to be controversial. If that's seriously a problem for you, I can add it to the poll. --Calthinus (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus: My semi-facetious remark to your comment was because I honestly didn't remember seeing SNOWBALL invoked proactively before. (I'm not saying it hasn't; I just don't remember seeing it.) Anyway, real life has been interfering for the past couple of days, so I'm just catching up. I'm unaware of any glaring omission, but I've only taken a cursory glance at that page today. Presumably, anyone who sees another potential title—or thinks of one that hasn't been mentioned yet—can add a new row to the table. RivertorchFIREWATER02:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Calthinus, I'm finding it very tedious figuring out where to stick my !votes. The table format doesn't lend itself to easy additions in the edit window, at least not if one wants to put them in the right place. If many more users participate, I fear !votes may be misplaced, formatting broken, and the situation become dire. I hope this doesn't come across as nitpicking—you obviously put considerable effort into this—but I think the standard one-column layout with different editable section levels would be a lot easier to work with. RivertorchFIREWATER05:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aiyaiyai :/. I guess we'll see if anyone else has this issue. At the very least I'll place comments for what each column is. --Calthinus (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please know and understand the standards and guidelines before you tell someone off for editing warring on their talk page. Try reading WP:DERRY before wasting my time. 82.28.89.159 (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please use an edit summary to describe what you're up to, instead of wasting other Wikipedians' time by expecting them to read your mind? While you're at it, I suggest you read WP:EW; as a policy, it outweighs any guideline. (Here's the short version: never under any circumstances keep reverting someone else's edits unless they're unambiguous vandalism or copyright or BLP violations.) If you want to be extra brilliant, you might use the article's talk page to explain how the sentence that you reverted, which is sourced to a book unavailable for online reading, refers to the city and not the county—an approach which might have stopped your fellow IP edit warrior cold in their tracks. Finally, because I'm sure you're a kindhearted person and not an insensitive boor, you might consider acknowledging that before warning both you and the other IP and requesting semi-protection for the page, I did change it back to your preferred version. RivertorchFIREWATER06:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct that I'm not a insensitive boor just like I'm sure you are not a prat. For future reference, it's not my preferred version but that of this community. 82.28.89.159 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can be a prat. It's sort of like being a werewolf, except in my case instead of the full moon the trigger is seeing snarky comments on my talk page. Oh, and there's another difference: I usually don't howl. RivertorchFIREWATER18:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I notice that a user doesn't have a talk page yet, or one without a "Welcome", I try to sweeten the bitter pill a little with one of the welcome templates designed for the purpose. In this case, {{Welcomenpov}} would have worked, or maybe {{Welcome-anon-unconstructive}}. There's a list of them at WP:WT. My hope is that the "welcome" phraseology in the message is an additional quantum that may help make the difference between a future vandal and a future productive editor. Sort of the difference between just shouting, "Hey, you broke my window!" and saying, "Welcome to our little corner of the world, neighbor. By the way, I had to fix that window; hopefully that won't happen again." Am I being too optimistic? Maybe. Just my 2¢. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to read your 2¢. Actually, it's funny you should bring this up. I have a fairly complex calculus I follow in deciding what template to use or whether to use one at all, and I did think twice before templating that particular IP. I dislike templates such as the ones you mentioned because I think that the warning sort of gets lost amid the welcome, and I have always declined to welcome vandals or other users who I believe are being deliberately disruptive. If it's a borderline case, and I feel that a somewhat friendlier message would be appreciated, I usually disdain all templates and just write something from scratch. In this case, I wavered over whether to leave any message at all. In the end, I decided that I wanted something on the record in case they turned out to be a static IP and wound up making more edits in the same vein. I concluded that the chances were slim at best that someone who writes about "the forced acceptance of homosexuality in America" would ever be a productive editor, at least on any topic related to sexual orientation, civil rights, politics, or American history, and it occurred to me that the wording of the template I chose was very mild—not quite welcoming, but not the slightest bit bitey. Bottom line: while I think you're being a little too optimistic in this case, I consider optimism much preferable to its opposite. RivertorchFIREWATER13:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Rivertorch. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
.jpg)
