User talk:Rivertorch

Talk Archive 2006–2007 | Talk Archive 2008 | Talk Archive Early 2009 | Talk Archive Late 2009
Talk Archive Early 2010 | Talk Archive Late 2010 | Talk Archive Early 2011 | Talk Archive Late 2011
Talk Archive Early 2012 | Talk Archive Mid 2012 | Talk Archive Late 2012 | Talk Archive Early 2013

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 prefer to conduct a given conversation on a single talk page.

So if you leave me a message on my talk page, I'll reply here.

And if I leave you a message on your talk page, please reply there.

Use of the Talkback template is generally unnecessary.

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).

Bikini in UAE

Although UAE has dress code, but every semi autonomus emirate has own interpretation about UAE's dress code and every emirate makes their own rule or at least their own interpretation. Dubai is liberal, although Dubai want polite dress, but there are no sanction to whom use bikini or miniskirt. 100 kilometers north of Dubai, at Ras al-Khaimah emirate, the emirate make new rule in April 2013 that prohibited (will be fined) bikini and also male short-tight swim-pant in their public beach. Thank you for your consideration.Gsarwa (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This relates to this.

Hi, Gsarwa. Ideally, we'd discuss this at Talk:United Arab Emirates, but since we're here . . . assuming the foreign-language source you supplied supports all of the above, I'll rewrite and add it later today. Rivertorch (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Y Done. Let me know if there's any inaccuracy. I cannot read the source. Rivertorch (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Rivertorch, your interpretation is quite well. I only want the readers know that in Uni Arab Emirates (UAE is not a big country) there are many interpretations about attire among the emirates. And sorry that we discuss it in your User talk.Gsarwa (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. Article talk pages are usually a better place so that other editors can join the discussion, but this worked out well. Thanks for helping to make a more comprehensive article. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Essay

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)

If you feel it's ready, go ahead. I'd like to glance over it but am not going to have time till a little later today. I also haven't looked at the other page (based on my ramblings) in over a week (frankly have wanted to stay the hell away from anything to do with the topic) and that, I think, is going to need some serious attention before going live (or being linked to). Rivertorch (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it and the linked page go together. so let's wait until you've had a further ponder. Hell will not freeze over. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I think it already did. (See the last sentence here.) Idiotic jokes aside, I see I'm going to have to work on it a little bit (the second page, I mean) and omg I just caught sight of the time. Will be late for an appointment if I don't get the (frozen) hell off the computer. Will look at it tonight. Rivertorch (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's ready for primetime. WP:SUICIDES would be an option for the shortcut; if so, I suppose it would need a hatnote pointing to WP:SUICIDE. Rivertorch (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think my sandbox should be redirected indefinitely. I move pages so rarely that I can't remember the proper procedure for fixing it, and I'm not in the mood for following step-by-step instructions just now. If you're an old hand at moves, feel free to do the honors. Otherwise, don't worry—I never use a sandbox so I have lots of time to figure it out at my leisure! Rivertorch (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll migrate it, both of it, and your sandbox can be edited at will. All you need to do is to delete what is in there. And I'll hatnote the Suicide thing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

We are live at Wikipedia:Articles on suicides now, with comments on the talk page about where not to discuss policy. I'm requesting deletion of my userspace pages now we are live Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I hope our efforts will do some good. While the topic is a grim one, it was a pleasure working with you on it. Sorry my attention was so scattered much of the time. Rivertorch (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Grim, yes, but we may have made it less grim in WP terms. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

After the heated RM discussion

You may find Talk:Murder of Daniel Tupý refreshing, where an Rm to rename it thus was supported unanimously. It overlapped the prior one, but the combatants were not drawn to it.

An interesting question now is the name of the article on the murder of the young gentleman who died on a fence in laramie. It really ought to be about his murder, not a pseudo-bio. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

I don't know that I agree with you on that, FF. The gentleman in question has posthumously become something of a sociopolitical icon in a way that few other murder victims have become, and I think that may qualify him for a rare exception to the rule. I might further add that his article on Wikipedia, much like his very name in the wider world, has been a magnet drawing every manner of hater, homophobe, and crackpot out of their slimy little caves, and I'm pretty confident they'll smell blood and reemerge for any discussion of a proposed move. If I were you, in the interest of harmony, I'd accept that this is one of those occasional exceptions that should be tolerated even if you dislike its apparent inconsistency. If you do pursue it, I'll either bow out of the discussion entirely or will almost certainly be in the opposing camp. Sorry about that. Rivertorch (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I simply await the rest with amusement and wry interest :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You lost me. The rest of what? Rivertorch (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone, anyone, deciding that latter article should be renamed. I'm not about to do it, but someone will. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Well, you're probably right. For me, I'm afraid the thought doesn't give rise to amusement. The operative word, I think, would be dread. Rivertorch (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What interests me there is that it seems, now pretty much everything positive derived form his death has been set in motion or, perhaps, achieved, his murder seems to have emerged as having been financially motivated (robbery) and done by some asswipe coming down from a drug high, not because the lad was homosexual. There is a certain irony, almost, in the awful slaying of a gay lad by what appears to be happenstance, creating so much good in its wake. I'd prefer it that he were alive and that the voice of reason had created the good things, but I wonder if that would ever have happened. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean it "seems to have emerged"? Do you have a good, recent source for that or are you talking about the years-old 20/20 hatchet job cited by various quacking socks and sundry peabrains who heard on FOX TV that hate-crime legislation is plot by secular communists and decided to do a drive-by on the article? This was discussed repeatedly on the talk page, but it has been off my watchlist for some while. Have I missed something in the news? Because the last time I checked, the murder was committed by two asswipes—not one—who tortured him, lashed him to a fence, and left him to the Wyoming autumn elements. So the perps robbed him. So at least one of them was high. So fucking what? Neither of those factoids necessarily speaks to motivation. Rivertorch (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly the item you describe as a hatchet job. I don't think we are on different sides of this discussion, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't think we'd be on different sides, no, but one thing I'm frequently reminded of around here is how risky it is to make assumptions about any of my fellow editors. It may be one of the strengths of this community that we're incredibly diverse, with unpredictable intersections and divergences of experience and viewpoint, but it also can be disconcerting. If you really want to talk about MS at some point, email probably would be better, since most of what I'd have to say would be going deep into OR territory and have little or nothing to do with the Wikipedia article. For the moment, suffice it to say that I don't believe I'm feeling up to playing an active role in the kind of discussion that would inevitably happen if someone were to propose moving that article. Maybe next week, maybe next month, but hopefully it won't arise anytime soon. Rivertorch (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A wholly non urgent and unimportant email has winged its way to you. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish People

Firstly i am sorry for my English it isnt good. I suggested add 5 Person to infobox they are important People for Kurds can you add them. I can not add because. You can find pictures on commons. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeboy25 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. As I said on the article's talk page, I have two problems with your request. To clarify a little:

1. I can't find Wikipedia articles for some of the names you mentioned, so I'm not sure they meet our notability requirements. If they aren't notable as Wikipedia defines notable, I'm not sure they would be good candidates for inclusion in the infobox. Keep in mind that the infobox cannot possibly depict every famous Kurd and probably should give preferential treatment to the most historically significant people.
2. I think the table in the infobox might look bad if it didn't have the same number of images in each row. There are five per row, so maintaining the balance would require either adding another row of five or replacing some of the current people.

So, for starters, do we have articles on all of these people? If so, please provide links. It would be better if you'd do that on the article's talk page instead of my talk page so that other editors can participate in the discussion. Rivertorch (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Y Done. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Kitteh for you!

For the kind words and appreciation! (Not for breakfast)

ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Awww . . . so adorable. I hope he or she will get along with this one. Catfights are deprecated in user space, I believe. Rivertorch (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll get a dog next time to eat the cats =P

...Then you just need a jackal to eat the dog...and a lion to eat the jackal...and fifty rats to eat the lion...and five owls to eat the rats...And what eats owls? Cats? Damn! Back where we started... Maybe request an animal sanctuary next time to head off these dilemmas Rivertorch? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the pinnacle of the food chain, if I'm not mistaken. Then again, there's this fearsome predator, supposedly in residence here at Wikipedia, although I've never actually shaken paws with it (just heard strange, unsettling roars from a distance). Rivertorch (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaurs?? Dinosaurs are nowhere on the food chain, they're extinct!

And you're lucky this isn't Conservapedia or you would have to prove those even existed on this >6000 year old flat Earth! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

[Notified by new notify feature, Bishzilla wakes up out of light nap. Is flattered. Fearsome!] Hello little user! [Tries to shake little paw. Difficult to get hold of. Shakes entire little Rivertorch instead.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 04:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC).

Lmao! You were right Rivertorch, Bishzilla is fearsome! Reverted some changes to your userpage last night - just a heads-up. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Well, I'm sort of back now. Halfway back. Pleased to have confirmation that not all dinosaurs are extinct (and thrilled that Echo is redeeming itself—I'd wondered if I should leave the fearsome one a note or if it would be Notified). Rivertorch (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Well at least the animal problem is solved. Feed them to the mighty Bishzilla! =D

And have a nice day Rivertorch ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Big Kudos to you!

I appreciate you policing certain aspects of the Philadelphia University Wikipedia Article. Yes I am a part of the PR and web editing team at the University and I appreciate people making changes so that it does not sound like a commercial. It keeps the information more trustworthy. Though there are some who have been making many inaccurate changes. I saw that you stopped one user from making an inaccurate change to our motto back in September. I thank you for that. I would like to reach out to you for your help as we continue to monitor the page's accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.95.240 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. To be honest I had forgotten all about that. I removed the article from my watchlist some while ago, but I see you reverted vandalism there today. I'm now watching the page again and will request that it be locked if things get out of hand. (You can make such a request yourself at WP:RPP.) As I recall, there was some question over identifying a reliable source for the motto. Any help you can give in terms of providing links to reliable sources would be appreciated; you can post such info to the article's talk page. Actually, since you work for the university, ideally you'd propose all your edits instead of making them yourself, to avoid any conflict of interest issues. (You should always feel free to revert blatant vandalism, of course.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I guess I might note that both vandalism and its reversion are coming from the same IP: yours. "P U". Har-de-har. Sure this is a university, not an elementary school? ;) Rivertorch (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)