User talk:Rivertorch

Rivertorch is busy off-wiki nominally back from an unexpectedly long absence and is in "read-only mode", trying to get up to speed.
October 1, 2011

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

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).

Rfc

I agreed with your Rfc comment about "not any editor". I think 10 serious editors are better than 100 error prone ones. Now, FYI, User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#Serious_Wikipedians. Ideas? History2007 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(Fixed your link above) I'm only half paying attention today. Super busy. I'll turn my attention to it when I can do it justice. Rivertorch (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And I've replied now. (And I fixed my "fix"!) Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability has a page. If you would like to just add your name as a participant there, it will gain momentum based on user endorsement. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been giving it serious consideration for over a day now, and I guess I should have let you know that before now. Several concerns are getting in the way of my casually tossing four tildes onto the page. For one thing, I've never joined any WikiProject, and I'm not sure I want to become a "joiner" at this point. If I did decide to stop being the Lone Ranger and start collaborating in a structured way, I think I might be of more use to one of the more established projects, such as the Guild of Copyeditors or perhaps one related to a subject with which I'm familiar enough to write about intelligently. I also am concerned about any sustained collaborative effort because off I'm not sure I can commit to giving the time and close attention something like that would deserve. If I'm going to commit to doing something, I'd rather not do it halfway.

More specifically, I also have specific concerns about two of your project's stated objectives, and I'm not sure whether an endorsement of them is implied in the act of joining up.

So I'm still weighing my options, I guess. I do appreciate the invitation and wish you every success with your project, whether I sign on to it or not. Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The objectives are subject to debate by the participants of course. So which objectives bother you? That would be good to know. As in any other Wiki project or Wikipage, no one agrees on anything 100%, but discuss it. As for a "long term contract" for you to do free work, none exist in Wikipedia. People can walk off anywhere any time. History2007 (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That is technically true, of course; no one has a gun to his head around here. But I certainly wouldn't feel good about walking off in the middle of something I've invested time and effort in.

As I said on Blade's talk page, I am unsure about the last two objectives. I'm happy to discuss that in some detail, but I'm only online for a few minutes today. Rivertorch (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The last objective in probably not a "reliability objective" in fact now that I think about it but a general content protection objective. I will try to separate that out and add something else. What do you suggest as item 7 once that goes away. The 6th objective about reliability over new articles may in fact bother some other people too, so I will think about softening that. Ideas? History2007 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

All right. This is likely to be sort of long, so bear with me. For starters, I'd say that Item 7 is a reliability objective, broadly construed, inasmuch as bad edits of various sorts can and do make articles unreliable. But the "semi-automated tools for 'content protection'" concerns me. I don't know what a semi-automated tool would be, in this context. Do you mean something like Pending Changes/Flagged Revisions? Or a Twinkle-type gadget? The latter would help with vandalism, including outright spam, but not so much with "thinly veiled commercial promotion". As for the former, it may be inevitable eventually, but I can't say I want to have much do with it in any incarnation I've seen to date (and the issues it raises aren't limited to a lack of technical sophistication). In either case, I'm not sure how a WikiProject is going to go about encouraging the creation of such technologically-based solutions. Even if we're just talking bots, those are created by people who have the skills and the time and who are interested in that sort of thing. So I guess I'd just get rid of Item 7 for the moment. I don't see why anything need replace it.

I'm conflicted about Item 6. No one could reasonably argue with its first sentence, but the second sentence is quite debatable. Unless we're quite sure that a decade of article-writing has filled all the significant gaps, we shouldn't be emphasizing the improvement of existing articles over the creation of new ones. I, for one, am not at all sure. Although nearly all of the "low-hanging fruit" may have been picked by now, I'm not persuaded that there aren't significant gaps yet. Fwiw, I still not infrequently encounter nonexistent articles when I come here to look something up. Sometimes they've been deleted—perhaps wrongly—and sometimes they're redirects that deserve their own articles and sometimes they're just not here at all and never were. And I'm just not sure that filling those gaps isn't of the highest importance.

Consider also that while plenty of editors are flexible and can contribute in different ways, others are not and cannot. For instance, some editors are better at creating something from scratch but get really bored or inept when faced with the task of molding and polishing something beyond its fledgling stages. By the same token, others thrive on sourcing content, rewriting text, finding and arranging graphics, adding infoboxes and the like but couldn't write a passable stub to save their life. No amount of cajoling or coercion will turn one kind of editor into the other kind. Editors with enough self-insight will realize where their strengths and weaknesses lie, but others will make futile efforts to conform to community standards and wind up in situations where their incompetence gets them into trouble. Bottom line for me on this one: while I support placing certain limits on article creation, I don't want to discourage any competent editor from writing a new article. Ever.

Specifics aside, I guess I might as well ask you in very general terms: why exactly do you think your project is a good idea? What would your project supply that is lacking in the WP community currently? Rivertorch (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have started to think about your items, and that resulted in some useful items that will help others in general,e.g. two new pages on reliability tools, if you look on the project page. I will do more fixes then respond, but your comments already helped clarify some items. I will do more, then come back in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll look forward to seeing that. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Wiki-Watch should go on the front page in a week or two, then reliability will get some attention. I am yet to expand the project items but will do so in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Rivertorch (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am so appreciative!

Dear Rivertorch, Thanks immensely for your comment on my addition to Leon Russell career history. Yes I totally need to learn how to cite my additions. I did my homework though, and found the required Billboard magazine issues on Amazon. However, I do need to learn how to do the footnotes asap. i guess I was overwhelmed that inserting a footnote would mean renumbering the others. But I just now realize perhaps that is done automatically? Anyway, my pertinent background is in writing music/record reviews for the Boston Globe, as well as local music magazines. I am also interested in legal writing, so am quite aware of how logical you are and appreciative of your insight. i have a strong tendency toward the flourid in my writing, which i often don't see until I get a kick in the pants. Mea culpa in profundis, blah blah. anyway, i am in complete agreement that this page badly need prose edits. some of the writing is cringeworthy. (The awkward use of "Further" is painful!) I became interested in the Leon Russell page because I like his music. I also had a friendship in 1972 with one of his band members, Joey Cooper, whom he also worked with on the TV show Shindig in 1964 and 1965. That show was a unique petrie dish for Russell's musical aspirations and first exposure to psychedelia and the "British Beat" sound. None of this is easily documentable of course, but I may try. As it stands the career section for Russell is too much like one big name dropping session. That makes writing easy, but the result is obnoxious and boring. Where is the insight? Our society's appetite for celebrityism makes superficial writing about elbow rubbing all you need to describe a person's life. Sad. Thanks for listening!!! Kgenereux (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, yes. Well, Russell's article is on my watchlist only because I reverted vandalism or something like that. I'm aware of who he is, his recent comeback via Elton John, and the fact that he was very well known in the '70s, but I don't pretend to know much about him. I I actually haven't done more than skim the article so far. (So many tasks to do here, so little time.) Yes, footnotes are sorted automatically: once the reflinks are set up on a page (which they already are at Leon Russell), inserting the source information between the tags <ref> and </ref> will place the citation in the references section and number it. Honestly, citations are one of the more complex things to get right on Wikipedia, and no one's going to jump on you if you screw it up. (They might revert you. Preferably, they'll just fix it.) I'm just online for a few minutes now, but I'll try to take a detailed look at the article over the next day or so.

Incidentally, your background in writing music reviews could be very helpful to Wikipedia. Don't worry about your writing style. If you go over the top, someone invariably will let you know. There is a tendency around here for article text to be flat and boring. In my view, that is an unfortunate side effect of the policies requiring that content be neutrally worded, verifiable, and free of original research. It's actually possible to honor those policies and still write lively prose, but it's a fine balance sometimes. Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If I could decipher it.....

Hi Rivertorch,

This sentences were not "deciphered" :))

What is incomprehensible here, please?

---

(1)Jesus is in their theology (2)God´s ....(3)only born-created.... (2)Son, ....(4)but not ....(5)God the Son... (6)as believe trinitarians.....

easy to understand

---

The Witnesses, though they do give relative "worship" ("proskyneo") to Jesus as (1)God's Son and (2)Messiah, (3)Christ, (4)the Lord ((5)but not The LORD, (6)which they considerer only to Almighty God, the Father), and pray through Him as (7)Mediator, do not give him the same degree of worship or service as they give to God the Father.

easy to understand

---

regards --FaktneviM (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edit added these phrases to the article:

• Christ, the Lord (but not The LORD, which they considerer only to Almighty God, the Father),
• Jesus is in their theology God´s only born-created Son, but not God the Son as believe trinitarians.

Aside from the errors in spelling and capitalization (which I would have fixed), the grammar and syntax were bizarre enough that I couldn't be sure what you meant, so I just reverted. "Consider" is a transitive verb; you can't "consider to" something. But removing the preposition leaves us with "which they consider only Almighty God", which doesn't make any sense, either. In the other phrase, what exactly is a "born-created Son"? It has no clear meaning in English. Your explication above (why is it numbered?) isn't very helpful, I'm afraid. In any case, I have no particular interest in the article or the topic; I was there only as a copyeditor.

Incidentally, I see that someone has left a comment on your talk page regarding your difficulties in using standard English. May I suggest that one solution might be for you to post your proposed edits on a given article's talk page? That would allow you to explain what you mean and for the wording to be cleaned up before it goes into the article. Personally, I value diversity among Wikipedia editors, but I suspect your proficiency in English is not yet sufficient for the types of edits you've been making. Articles must be clearly written in standard English. Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Phrase "born-created" means both togetger.

No, it doesn't.

Numbering designate dfferent thoughts for Your better understanding.

Well, it didn't work.

Could You demonstrate these senteces in that right "form of English"?

Thanks for help. --FaktneviM (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FaktneviM, I'd like very much to help you—in theory. If we were speaking in person, I'm sure we could understand each other, but your command of written English is making it next to impossible for me to understand you and, I suspect, for you to understand me. The fact that you're not even typing carefully or checking what you've typed—your reply above contains three typos—doesn't exactly move me to spend a lot of time on this. I'll repeat my suggestion that you go to the article talk page (Talk:God the Father) and propose the changes you want to make to the article. It is possible that someone who is familiar with that article will be able to understand your meaning. As I said, I'm not interested in the article, and I'm not familiar enough with the topic to glean your meaning from the clues you've given. Sorry. Rivertorch (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

1) I understand You clearly! For me is no problem to understand those lofty Englishmans at Wikipedia, but they can´t do the same.

2) "If we were speaking in person, I'm sure we could understand each other" - No doubt about it.

3) "born-created" .... is non-existing word, but means as could be logically expected - born and created together.

4) Numbering ... didn't work. .... That´s not possible. You seems quickwitted. Please try once more. You surely manage it.

5) Generally saying, my mind is faster than real doing, ... so many typing errors I do very very often despite using previews many times before I save it. Excuse me, but I have right to do typing errors thousand times per one sentence, if I want it to do. You have no right to speculate about my personality.

6) It´s very sad to know overwhelming majority of native english are lethargic and lazy to think. This is recent state of people here. Never mind.

Thanks --FaktneviM (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that is just silly. Point by point:

1. If you understood me clearly, I think you might have taken my constructive advice and posted to the article's talk page.
2. Glad we agree on that.
3. Logical expectations vary among individuals. Nuances of language often confound logical expectations.
4. Sarcasm and negative generalizations about other editors aren't going to win you any friends.
5. Spell-check is fast and easy and will catch many of your typos. I did not speculate about your personality, but I did comment on your carelessness in typing, and I stand by my comment.
6. I'm not "native english" [sic]. I am often lethargic and occasionally lazy, but I think that as an unpaid volunteer, just like you, I may be forgiven for that. Sometimes, when a topic interests me, I become very focused and excited about editing. As I indicated before, the minutiae of theological views of the Jehovah's Witnesses is not such a topic.

I have been considerably more patient with you than I'd expect anyone to be with me if I were to bumble onto a foreign-language Wikipedia and call its editors lazy because they didn't take time to contemplate my garbled claims. My good faith is fast approaching its limit, so I hope you'll take my sincere well wishes with you as you move on to other areas of the project. It's a vast world out there. Sorry I couldn't be of help. Rivertorch (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well. I have no throw to this debate too. Never mind. I appriciate Your driving motives and make no question of your advices, which could help me in future. Despite generalizations of other editors seem to be unfair, critical point of statistics is clear. For many years, for several different topics, I had no fluke to encounter unlazy+unlofty+helpful editor. Perhaps my development will reassume and look forward optimistically, because lot of problems is on my side. Hopefuly this agonized talk right now will not relevant for our potential tomorrow. Best regards --FaktneviM (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

whoops, had a finger fumble

Reverted you on the Pending changes discussion page with an accidental rollback click, undid it, but I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know it was just a finger-fumble. Sorry 'bout that. Best, --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete the main page lately?  ;) Seriously, thanks for the heads-up. I've done worse! Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

*grin* Nope, nor blocked Jimbo... yet.  ;-) --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reflist @ talk page

Hi Rivertorch,

I'm sorry if I did something wrong, the talk page had that ugly big red text about missing references/, and I just inserted it without much thinking.... I will revert it in no time. Sorry.

Br, dnik ► 16:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No harm done. Thanks for letting me know. Usually, when I see something I don't understand at all, it's because I'm being clueless. Rivertorch (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(thread began here)

Btw, regarding the associated article, are you up on notability requirements for backing bands? I noticed that Spyboy and The Nash Ramblers (and The Hot Band) don't have articles, and I was wondering if they should. (Sourcing would be a big job, especially for The Hot Band, I suspect.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

James Michel

Hi. Ok maybe my edits were a bit far fetched. But the article itself is biased and unfounded. For example, have you ever asked the person who wrote this paragraph where is the evidence to back it up?:

There are claims that Seychelles still suffers from limited freedom and transparency of the press and, according to the opposition, rigged elections.[citation needed] This claim is not justified when, according to official results, President René and his Seychelles People's Progressive Front party won presidential and legislative elections in 2001 and 2002 respectively, with about 54% of the vote in both cases.[2] Compare this to the nations with true dictatorships where elections are won with 95% plus of the votes! Seychelles has a free media, TV, radio and print. There are a raft of newspapers not aligned to the ruling party. Sadly, these opposition papers are of very poor quality, providing virtually zero serious political debate and bereft of alternative policies to those being pursued by President Michel. The free press indulges mainly in scandal, little tattle and mud slinging.

I know for sure that is not true coz I live there. Its frustrating because people who only see the country through the web think they know more than those who actually live there. Is this paragraph written from a neutral point of view? In fact, if you would try to get hold of all the copies of the newspapers there, you will see that the Nation, the main state controlled paper is very biased to the president. He is always on the front page. It is filled with adverts. It is of poor quality. There is hardly ever any proper news about the real state of things in the country. For that, you have to go to other papers e.g. Regar, Today and Weekly (the so called opposition papers). They are high quality.

I repeat, people who only see the country through the web think they know more than those who actually live there. Not just you, but even the UN and IMF. Therefore, even if Wikipedia tries to be neutral, it fails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.3.195 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The first of your two edits to the article changed the infobox to suggest that the President Michel had married his secretary. If that was true, it was incumbent upon you to provide a credible source to back it up. If it wasn't true, then it was an act of vandalism that violated Wikipedia's policy on biographical content. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I actually spent 2–3 minutes checking and drew a blank.

Your second edit—also unsourced—reported the results of an election in colorfully POV terms and alleged bribery on the part of the defeated incumbent. But wait—it seems the election hadn't even happened yet when you made the edit. So you deliberately inserted non-factual content based on wishful thinking into an encyclopedia article that is supposed to be limited to verifiable fact. That is vandalism, and unequivocally so. You have acted in bad faith and destroyed your own credibility.

Wikipedia is not a tool for influencing elections, nor is it your own personal soapbox. I urge you to limit any further activity at Wikipedia to sourced edits that may be easily verified; otherwise, your tenure here is likely to be short. Rivertorch (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

PTED article "vandalism"

PTED is real, the article is not a blatant appempt to sell books, those books should be worked into the references correctly not in the manor they are; I have a PhD in the area; but I don't know how to do references correct; please undo your misguided changes; and if possible format the books correctly. I take it you are not an expert in this area from your ignorant and flippant post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.207.224 (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the article need be greatly improved and is poorly written in many ways; but that material need be in it as they are the seminal books; this disorder is under consideration for DSM-V. I have read both books; they are not in anyway dubious. They are scientifically rigorous. Please help improve the article if you so wish if you know the material... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.207.224 (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea who you are or what you're talking about, but I'll see if I can figure it out and respond later. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP appears to be making reference to this crapmess. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I hadn't got around to checking yet, but thanks for the heads-up. (Long time no see, btw!) Rivertorch (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mmph…evidently I quit editing Wikipedia the way smokers quit smoking, i.e., repeatedly. Look carefully at the "retired" box at the top of mah talk page. Tee hee, etc. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[cough, wheeze, flick Bic, edit conflict] I saw your name in Recent Changes one day recently, so I knew you weren't gone gone. But the plot thickens: not only have I never edited this crapmess or its associated article; I have never edited any page that 108.7.207.224 has ever edited. [fade in Twilight Zone music] Which is all very well—mistakes do happen (I once almost reverted Jimbo when I inadvertently clicked on the wrong tab)—but I can't understand how this one might have happened. If our edit histories have never intersected, it's downright odd. Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, pardon my denseness . . . it's a nice-"sounding" (ahem) pun, but I actually don't get it. Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't overthink it; it's little more than a clever word-sound pun on citation/cetacean. But the template is fun to read. I see two possible explanations for the crapmess weirdness: Either you've been sucked via transwarp conduit into an alternate reality in which you are actively involved in editing that crapmess, or our IP-only friend is exactly as much of a bull in the china shop as E appears to be. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't see any plausible way an IP I've never intersected with ended up on my talk page, I'll have to accept your first hypothesis. (Please let my new reality be more real than my old reality, with little or no unreality and only sporadic episodes of surreality.) Although their comment did sound like the sort of comment I'm prone to getting, which made me wonder if someone was having a little fun. (To IP 108.7.207.224: Thank you. I love a mystery!) As for marine mammals, I overthought it. Did you get the sound part, though? ;) Rivertorch (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Whale-sounder is somewhere on the list of jobs I do not want. Here is hoping your new reality involves cubic wadloads of money crammed under your front door with no strings attached. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ivo Pauwels (author)

Dear River,

I just have written this page, which is a translation/adaptation from that, which I have originally written in Dutch and in French. Could you please have a look on it and correct my linguistic/grammatical errors.

Many thanks, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. My schedule is a bit challenging today, but I'll take a look sometime within the next 24 hours. Rivertorch (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you in advance for your appreciated help. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I made some edits, but more are needed. Some questions before I can proceed:

• In English-language culinary terminology, Fines herbes (actually a French term with French spelling) is a specific collection of several specific herbs. Did he really write a book on that or was it herbs in general? Growing them? Cooking with them?
• I don't know what "secure barbecue" means. If I had to guess, I'd guess it means either safe barbecuing or permanent barbecue installations (as opposed to portable grills). But you can just tell me :)
• I don't understand "ensured the photography". Did he take the photos? Write the accompanying text? Edit the books?
• In the second paragraph, I'm not sure what his role was at Groene Vingers. TV programs do have editors, but I suspect he was the producer or executive producer.

If I can fill in those blanks, that should take care of any translation problems. Other suggested improvements: expand the lead section to better summarize the content of the rest of the article; specifying the start and end years (not just the duration) of Pauwels's various professional positions; include the IPA pronunciation of his name. A couple more question: those names separated by commas in the infobox—that's his full name? Also, I wonder if the "(author)" disambiguation is needed in the article's title. Rivertorch (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear River,

Hereafter you have already some answers:

• In Ivo's book about the "fine herbs" it describes it from A to Z, i.e., their origin, how to cultivate them, and how to use them in the kitchen.
• It means "How to use barbecues safely"
• Ivo is sometimes a friend of the first author as well as co-author of some of these books (e.g., "Rozenraad"). For other books he was taking pictures for the author or providing them/her with pictures of his own photographic library.
• "Groene Vingers" was a television series about gardening. Ivo was not the CEO, but actually the person who wrote the script or, when written by others, Ivo reviewed the script thoroughly.

For IPA pronunciation, I never used this tool and I do not know how to use it. Could please help?

With my renewed thanks for your help, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why "Ivo Pauwels (author)"? Answer: In Flanders there are two well known persons with the name "Ivo Pauwels", my friend "Author" - see nl:Ivo Pauwels (auteur) and an "Actor" - see nl:Ivo Pauwels (acteur). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: Those names separated by commas in the infobox — that's indeed his full name. I have removed the commas. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to help, and I'll try to get back to it late tonight (mid-morning tomorrow in your time zone). The usual practice would be to make the en.wp title simply Ivo Pauwels unless there's a good chance of the actor Ivo Pauwels getting an article of his own at en.wp. Is the actor well-known in any English-speaking countries, I wonder.

I am not proficient in IPA and have little idea of Flemish pronunciation. There's probably a WikiProject or centralized noticeboard for IPA requests. I really don't know but I'll see if I can find it later. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that translated pages may need attribution. I see from the history that you're the only editor who has made any substantive contributions to the Dutch-language article, but to be on the safe side I'm placing a translation template on the talk page (of the English article). You may also want to note in an edit summary to the English article that it's a translation from nl.wp (see Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia). Rivertorch (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Ivo Pauwels (author)

Dear River,

Thank you for your style and grammatical changes to Ivo Pauwels (author).

Just one question: You have changed "Rosa 'Ella Elisabeth' – a rose arisen in Ivo Pauwels' garden" to "Rosa 'Ella Elisabeth' – a rose blooming in Pauwels' garden". Is this correct?

Rosa 'Ella Elisabeth' is a rose (a hybrid of uncertained parentage), which is born some years ago in Ivo's garden.
Ivo is now spreading this "obtention" (new cultivar) by cutting among friends and sells it for a humanitarian goal to visitors of his garden during his open days. The picture in the gallery is of the specimen which I got from Ivo and is growing in my garden.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was taking "arise" literally—a plant rising up from the ground. I think maybe "originate" might work here. Fixed now. Rivertorch (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Anytime. I fixed one more thing just now. Oh, and I keep forgetting to mention: since you'd begun the article with British spelling ("colours"), I continued in that vein ("programme"). Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous, accusing groundless changes

Dear River,

I have already three times reversed anonymous, accusing, groundless changes by 87.139.226.2 on page Symphony No. 9 (Bruckner). I guess it is another jealous composer/musicologue, who does not accept Letocart's completion. From contacts I have had with Letocart before writing this paragraph, I know that his work was appreciated as very valuable by W. Carragan, but not by Cohrs and Phillips... Letocart's work is also appreciated by John Berky ([1]) and the CD of it is put by him as exclusive.

Wan can we do? I would propose to temporary block 87.139.226.2 because of defamation. What do you think?

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC) PS: This anonymous user did also the same on the page of the French site. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm barely here today—just logging in to deal with anything on my watchlist. I'll be happy to look into the situation later (in the next 10–24 hours). In the meantime, don't revert anymore or you'll risk being blocked. Just explain your reasoning clearly on the article's talk page, and don't make any accusations about the other editor. There are several noticeboards and WikiProjects you could post a note at, but if there's any chance you've gone past three reverts, you'd probably better not. Rivertorch (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you think that defamation of a living person is occurring, you should report it here (and in that case your reverts should be exempt from WP:3RR.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

All right, I took a quick look (and made a couple of minor changes). The IP editor was certainly in the wrong to insert an unsourced allegation of copyright violations, and I have left a warning on their talk page. If they do it again, the Wikipedia:BLP_noticeboard is the best place to report it. In the meantime, I'm wondering about the two external links: Sébastien Letocart and Nicolas Couton. The Manual of Style deprecates that kind of link. If they meet notability standards, I'd suggest making them red links pending the creation of articles about them. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear River, thank you for your wise advice.

I will wait and let the Wikipedia:BLP_noticeboard know if this happens again. As you suggested, I have in put the names Sébastien Letocart and Nicolas Couton as red links.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear River,

User 87.139.226.2 has again changed this page. The writing is smoother than previously, but the intention looks still the same, i.e.:

• complimenting Carragan, and Samale & Co. completions,
• disparaging Letocart completion, especially by deleting the reference to his thesis and replacing it by "Letocart tried to justify his decisions in a commentary in French".

Please have look on it and, as an independent arbiter, agree or disagree with these changes.

Thank you again for your wise advice. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted it based on concern over neutral wording and opened a thread on the talk page which I hope both you and the IP will use. Discussion may or may not prove productive, but it should have begun long ago. Rivertorch (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Cast your eye upon this…

Hi, RT. Thought you might want to see this: [2][3] —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't shy away from controversial topics, do you? Your edit looks like a definite improvement. Rivertorch (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ayuh, controversial topics are my speciality; I absolutely live for the fast-paced, contentious, big, dramatic controversy in Dodge Dart and Chrysler Slant-6 engine and Headlamp and Automotive lighting and suchlike. ;-) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Slant-6? Stop, you're giving me flashbacks of cars I drove in a earlier millennium. Rivertorch (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Flashbacks? Not for me! That green machine in Dodge Lancer is mine. The red '71 in Dodge Dart was mine; I've now got a metallic-by-god-brown '73 Dart. With black vinyl top. And bench seat. Reminds me of my grandfather's last car (though his was a butter-yellow '72 with a froggy green interior). Now see whatchya done, I'm all spun up! =8^{D}} —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't realized you were retro (if only on the automotive front). What, no Chargers or 'cudas or other well-muscled machines in the stable? Rivertorch (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hellz no. Baccarudas and Chargers and suchlike have two doors too few and two cylinders too many. And when are Apple going to release a rotary-dial iPhone, dangit?!! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Check your email. Rivertorch (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

ISO page debate

Hi Rivertorch, figured I'd thank you on your talk page, I appreciate the third opinion on the Revert war over the funding section on the ISO page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Socialist_Organization#Funding). You're right about it not being vandalism (I let my temper get the best of me), and I'd be thrilled to let disinterested editors keep a watch on all this. It just seemed like no one did, even after the page had this non-Wikipedia-standard material on it for days--I suppose that's probably par for the course for less traveled pages. So can I ask you?: I've started to look into dispute resolution, as recommended by Fastily, but there are so many different levels to enter into things. I'm skeptical that Jtizzi, whose Wikipedia authoring interest seems laser-focused on this one section of the ISO page, for whatever reason, will be convinced by my contention that there is no relevance for this information on the ISO page--that leaves very little room for collaboration. So what's the appropriate form of dispute resolution to pursue, do you think? --Alanmaass (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution of any kind would probably be jumping the gun at this point. The burden is on Jtizzi to make a persuasive case for including the disputed content. Until or unless that happens, there is consensus to exclude it. As long as discussion is proceeding on the talk page and the content isn't being restored, things are working the way they're supposed to. Rivertorch (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right, thanks much for the advice. --Alanmaass (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Letocart's completion

Dear River,

You have probably seen the comment of Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs, who is also not very happy with the anonymous changes.
According to his professional advice, I have added a short section Further Finale completions, to which I added links for two of these completions. I however, have doubts whether the link to Marshall Fine is concerning the same person...

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I made some minor grammatical corrections and delinked Fine. Further comments on the talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, River. I have followed your suggestions and that of B-J. Cohrs. Hopefully you find it now OK. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Colin Firth

Hi there. First of all, thank you for your work—but please be careful when reverting content removal in WP:BLP articles. In many cases, they are legitimate challenges, not vandalism. This was one such edit: the cited source actually did not support the claim in any way, and I have therefore removed the passage from the article again. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 06:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I got distracted and didn't check the linked article except (1) to confirm that it was actually a Telegraph news article and (2) to read the subhead, which states that Firth "has confessed to having little support for the beloved monarch's descendants – because he is a republican." It's a bit of a stretch to say the source "did not support the claim in any way", but I certainly would agree that it didn't support it entirely, and therefore the removal of the text was constructive. I will strike my warning on the IP's talkpage. Rivertorch (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't. You've wielded your mop. Thanks again. Rivertorch (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at NatGertler's talk page.
Message added 06:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Heh.

Talkback

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at Steven Zhang's talk page.
Message added 06:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied.

TFD

Hi, as requested, the TFD is here. ϢereSpielChequers 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 09:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See 'stats' for the update. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rivertorch. You have new messages at Scheinwerfermann's talk page.
Message added 00:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Strasbourg article

Thank you for your edit. Not only did the edit that you undid contain some rather odd English; it was factually incorrect. When I lived in Strasbourg fifty-odd years ago, it was predominantly German-speaking, having been in Germany for more than half of the previous hundred years. LynwoodF (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, age is subjective. What's ancient to some is quite recent to others. (And kids today are just as ignorant as I was when I was a kid!) Rivertorch (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Pico

No problem PiCo (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Rivertorch (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Agatha Christie

Your position on the propriety of using both the pre-nominal and the post-nominal on the article on Agatha Christie is confusing. While acknowledging the fact that persons holding substantive titles have both the pre-nominal and the post-nominal at the start of their Wikipedia article by convention on the talk page of the article, you have reverted an edit to the form "Dame Agatha Christie DBE" using the justification "Undid good-faith edit. Not "Dame" *and* "DBE"—one or the other. See talk page". So the article starts with "Agatha Christie DBE", which cannot be justified, unless the DBE is not substantive.

Would you care justifying your rather extraordinary edit?

Atchom 01:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: No. I don't think my edit was extraordinary or that any justification is indicated (although I have to ask: does making an extraordinary edit mean I'm an extraordinary editor?). Long answer: The edit was back in May, and you can see from the talk page that I've made subsequent comments reflecting the ongoing discussion and my evolving understanding of the issue.

In any event, I'm puzzled that you've brought this to my talk page. I'm happy to discuss it further here if you'd prefer, but I think it would be better either to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Agatha Christie or just be bold and change it to what you think is right. Better yet, do both! (Btw, I admit to being more confused than ever after reading what you wrote below, but I'll look forward to seeing how it all gets resolved.) Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add relevant extracts from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies):

"Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated." From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) Dame Agatha being a British subject, and the DBE being a British honour, the relevant post-nominal would need to be included.

"Honorific prefixes [...]

The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles discussed in the Honorific Titles section below. Honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters. [...] As with regular titles, honorific titles should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but are optional after that."

Dame being a honorific prefix, its inclusion is justified by the above extract.

Furthermore, even if you consider using both the pre-nominal and the post-nominal is redundant, which is not supported by the relevant guidelines, it would still be wrong to use "Agatha Christie DBE" since it would imply that the DBE is not substantive.

Atchom 02:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Leonid Pastur

Dear Rivertorch,

I have edited the article Leonid Pastur; now there are 4 secondary sources (of which the first one, a paper in a refereed journal, contains most of the info). So I erased the tag; please have a look -- is it OK now?

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement. Good job! Rivertorch (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is creating an article on same-sex reproduction methods a good idea?

Hey, Rivertorch. In researching same-sex reproduction methods for a fairly new editor at the Sexual intercourse article, I wondered why such an article hasn't been created already. Do you think creating it is a good idea? From what I've seen online, I think a good article could be made about it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not RT, and I don't play RT on TV, but I'll cast an unsolicited !vote and say "Yes", I agree a good article could be crafted on the subject. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks, Scheinwerfermann. I'm sure Robertbayer, the editor I added the reproduction information for, would appreciate it a lot. I just wish he'd get in contact with me through email. Sure, I hardly check my email, but I'm getting better about that, LOL. I even let him know that he could contact me that way. But I wouldn't be surprised if decided not to because of how long I took to honor what could be viewed as a promise. Flyer22 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis. But seriously, folks . . . yes. If the sources are there for an article, I don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea. Let me know if I can do anything to help. Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear, Rivertorch, I'm talking about human same-sex reproduction methods. In regards to same-sex reproduction, I don't think of non-humans as having "methods." But thank you for your input. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You were entirely clear. My "but seriously, folks" apparently was opaque. You can see why my stand-up comedy career came to a quick and unhappy end.^{[citation needed]}. (Translation for those on a vastly different humor wavelength: Ignore any signs of silliness on my part. I think you should write that article. Want some help?) Rivertorch (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, help would be appreciated. I need another article under my "created" belt, one that is not about soap operas (LOL). I moved away from mostly working on soap opera articles some time ago, but I have yet to create a non-soap opera article. It's either this or serial rape, or both, before I leave Wikipedia for good (which is something I'm pretty set on these days). Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You must do what's best for you, but I think your leaving would be Wikipedia's loss. As for the article, the topic isn't one I'm very familiar with. But I'm quite good at drudgery such as copyediting, not too shabby at writing (which I get around to all too rarely anymore), fair to middling at arranging and organizing things, and will go dig up sources if compelled to at gunpoint. (Slow Internet connection is a real limiting factor right now when running searches and downloading things.) Let me know how I can help, and I'll make every effort. Rivertorch (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Rivertorch. And if I decide to create the article, I'll definitely have you assess it for whatever improvements it might need. I might even consult with you on certain things about it before it's created. For the time being, I have other matters to attend to on Wikipedia, so I'll worry about that stuff first. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Moye Stephens

Moye Stephens - Flying Carpets, Flying Wings ==

Rivertorch, Just to clarify - there is no intent by myself or any one else to promote or violate any wikipedia policies. I happen to be the 'expert' on Moye W. Stephens and the Flying Carpet around the world flight; Pancho Barnes, and the Wedell-Williams Air Service. As such, I feel comfortable and obligated to update sites relevant to these subjects. If a person has first hand knowledge about a subject matter, and that means interviewing the subject, why to you deem in inappropriate. I am aware, at this point, of wikipedia's policies. Some of the technical aspects I am still learning. I did not reply to any previous notices from you as I did not receive any emails and have not gone on wikipedia for since March. I do not know what other accounts and IP addresses you are referring to - I use two - my laptop and home computer. I have tried to follow the format already inputed in edits. Like I stated previously, I have not attempted to edit anything on wikipedia for months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schultzbarbara (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a puzzle. There is a clear record showing that you edited the Richard Halliburton article on June 30, a mere four weeks ago. In addition to Richard Halliburton and Moye W. Stephens, at least three other articles—Elly Beinhorn, Northrop N-1M, and Paul Mooney (writer)—have seen the insertion of your book. Besides yourself, users responsible for this mass insertion have included User:Barbarahschultz, at least four unregistered IPs assigned to Verizon Wireless, and one other registered editor who shall remain unnamed here and is apparently a big fan of your book. Sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or incredible coincidence—it really doesn't much matter; the effect is the same, and it's unfortunate both for Wikipedia (because it's disruptive) and for you (because it creates the appearance that you and/or your fans are going to great lengths to promote your book).

I left messages for you at User_talk:Barbarahschultz in March and at User_talk:Schultzbarbara in June. (Please read them.) When you log in, a prominent notice appears to let you know you have new messages on your talk page. As I said in my reply to your email, the normal method of communication at Wikipedia is the talk page; email is reserved for personal or confidential matters, and everything else gets discussed out in the open.

I'll take you at your word that you're the expert on the topic. Experts can be a very good thing at Wikipedia, especially since they know where to find the most reliable sources, but when those sources happen to be the fruits of an expert's own research—well, it makes things a bit awkward, both because of original research and, in the case of books, because of promotional concerns.

At this point, I'd suggest the following:

• Pick one account and use it exclusively for all your edits. If you feel you must use a separate one on your laptop, identify both as belonging to the same person. Instructions for that are here.
• Read read the guidelines on conflict of interest and bookspam.
• Begin a discussion at Talk:Moye W. Stephens, explaining exactly why your book is relevant and should be listed in the article. If there is consensus to list it, someone will add it. (You can repeat this process at the other articles if you want. I wouldn't do more than one at a time, since it would look spammy.)
• Take a look at Wikipedia:Welcome, which has all kinds of helpful tips and links. Ask me or at the Help Desk if you get stuck on "the technical aspects".

Sorry if some of this seems arcane and pointless. Wikipedia does have a learning curve, but there's a method to the madness.

Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by June 1, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record: Since I am not "an editor concerned in this dispute", I have declined. Rivertorch (talk)

dealing with newbies

Hi Rivertorch, I don't think we've crossed paths before, but I wanted to congratulate you on your polite and restrained handling of User:Barbarahschultz and User:schultzbarbara, here and on her/their talkpages. I am attempting to do the same with another editor, User:Gerry Max, who I see you have warned as well. Apparently they are both published authors who know each other IRL. I am having to commit emotional resources to assuming good faith on his part, but am reiterating that I am willing to help any newcomer who wishes to learn. I admire your wording, and may borrow and repurpose it. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind words, BrainyBabe. In my experience, nothing makes AGF more difficult to follow than users who repeatedly decline to respond to messages on their talk pages, so I was pleased to see both of those editors finally engaging. Over the long haul, I'd like to see some sort of effort to better acquaint new or occasional users with the concept of talk pages—what they're for, how they work, and so on. I've seen several users express surprise that no one had "bothered" to email them about problematic edits, and I wonder if this may be a widespread phenomenon. As for Schultz and Max, I'm on vacation and haven't been paying close attention for several days. I hope things have settled down. Rivertorch (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Chronicles Reply

Hi, my reasoning is quite simple. I have read the joint biography of Tolkien, Lewis, and Williams entitled The Inklings by Humphrey Carpenter in its entirety. It is a thorough book, and contains absolutely no mention of any influence of The Hobbit on the Narnia books, though it does mention Tolkien's influence on Lewis' theology/apologetics and on Lewis' science-fiction trilogy. Even unconscious influence is not a good suggestion, as both CSL and JRRT were deeply influenced by the same set of fantasy writers, in particular both were mega-fans of George MacDonald, and any apparent similarity between their works is far more easily accounted for by the shared influence of MacDonald on both of them, rather than the influence of one on the other. Similarly, the studies of Lewis by Kathryn Lindskoog and the bio of Lewis by A. N. Wilson mention no influence of The Hobbit on Narnia. (That's about as opposite as two perspectives you can get. Lindskoog is very traditional Christian, and while Wilson has recently become Christian, he was veering towards atheism at the time he wrote his Lewis bio.)

Regardless of individual Lewis books, I think the absence of any assertion is an especially well-researched joint bio of Lewis AND Tolkien is definitive. If Carpenter doesn't mention it, it's safe to bet it isn't true, unless some new personal correspondence has come to light.

Carpenter DOES think that the figure of Aslan was influenced by Charles Williams' novel The Place of the Lion.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very informative. I'll see if I can pick up a copy of the Carpenter and maybe the others. Rivertorch (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Star

Thanks! I think it's a bit silly to argue over uncontested biographical facts like this.   Will Beback  talk  09:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Understatement. Anyway, there has been a lot of it lately. If no reputable sources contest it, by golly we have Wikipedians who'll step up to the plate and sanitize the article of every gay celebrity, living or dead, who never signed a sworn statement attesting to his own—ahem—"lifestyle". (Gag.) There are times when I think the project is doomed. Rivertorch (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Karen Grassle

Hello there Rivertorch,

This is really my first time editing Wikipedia but I changed some things on Karen Grassle's page and noticed you changed them back citing 'unsourced changes'. Please forgive my ignorance if I should have cited myself, but I am her daughter, and I know these things because well, she's my mother. And Scott was an osteopath, something he was so egotistically proud of and got offended if called a (and I'm quoting him now) 'mere' psychiatrist. So I felt if only because I was told so often he was an osteopath her page should reflect that. I also no longer live with her, I'm 27, be kinda silly still living with my mom. She also moved from the palisades to the Bay Area quite a few years ago.

Anyway, I don't want to get into some type of editing war, actually I'm proud of her for finally getting up some personal website for her fans, and apparently she even put up a picture of us walking in the Garden of the Gods this summer.

If I should be citing myself feel free to let me know how/where. I'm certainly not a wiki expert. Have a pleasant day.

Synamin (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Synamin/Lily

Hmm. Well, first off, welcome to Wikipedia. I've taken the liberty of placing a "welcome" template on your talk page. It includes various links that you may find informative and helpful. A careful read of the policy on verifiability and the attendant guideline on reliable sources should make clear that citing yourself wouldn't work. You might also take a look at the "Close relationships" section of the conflict-of-interest guideline while you're at it.

I'm still on vacation and not spending much time on-wiki right now, but I'll give the specific content concerns some thought and reply further later in the week. I don't see that there's any controversial content at stake, so there's no rush. I see that you've made further edits to the article, though, and hope you'll keep in mind that information that's verifiable using reliable secondary sources, not personal knowledge, is the basis for Wikipedia content. That standard is taken especially seriously in articles about living persons. Rivertorch (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Rivertorch! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

just blatant wrong

wait for consensus 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny, that's precisely what I urged you to do. Twice. (1 2) Instead, you've continued to add illiterate gibberish to the article, as well as argumentative illiterate gibberish to the talk page. Perhaps you have a valid point regarding content, but you seem unable to express it in English. May I suggest you try editing your native-language Wikipedia instead of this one? Rivertorch (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Human article

Hi. Will you take a look at the Talk:Human#Possibly section about an objection I have concerning a recent edit? 193.169.145.43 (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)