User talk:Rivertorch/Archive14

RIVERTORCH TALK ARCHIVE LATE 2013

This page is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it.

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Rivertorch. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, my only involvement with that tool was to vote in the RfC back in January. Since I've barely ever looked at feedback collected by the tool, it really makes no difference to me whether it's enabled on the articles I watch. Sorry to hear about the damage done, though, and good luck with reimplementing it for those who want it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Shepard funeral

I hear what your saying about the reason for the protests, the way I left it was too vague. I have a suggestion for the funeral protest section, and would like to know what you think about it.
Start ->
The leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, protested Matthew Shepards funeral because of Mr. Shepards sexual-orientation. The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety from their anti-gay protests and funeral picketing.
-> End
Thank you for your time.
EzPz (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Trying to do five things at once. Will respond in a little bit. Rivertorch (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Your wording seems more or less reasonable. If I edited it, I think I'd make it more concise and neutral—something like this:

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps, received national attention for picketing Shepard's funeral with signs bearing homophobic slogans.

Honestly, I'm not sure whether that will suffice. Let's face it: Phelps didn't gain notoriety by being homophobic (or "anti-gay"); he gained it by being as outrageously homophobic as he possibly could. Including one or two of his slogans may get that point across without the risk of editorializing. Your call. (If this discussion goes any further, we should probably move it to Talk:Matthew Shepard.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll go with yours. Thanks for the input.EzPz (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Parallel universe

That was great, Rivertorch, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I was reminded recently of the fine line between amusing and offending, so I'm glad to hear I got it right this time! Rivertorch (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Statistics by Kettani

Since the user I'm conversing with insists on replying to my messages on my talk page in contravention of my request to do otherwise, I'm copying the earlier part of the conversation here so that it will be all in one place:

CV

Hello. Why are you adding your curriculum vitae as a reference to various articles? Rivertorch (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if links to pdf files of papers you authored or co-authored have become stale and that you're substituting a link to your CV. If I'm right, that doesn't seem like a very good idea. I'd suggest instead using the {{dead link}} tag pending the files' being hosted somewhere else. Or am I misreading things? I see that you've been reverted in several places, but we really should resolve this on all of the affected articles. Rivertorch (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, the pdf versions of papers and book are available in the "vita" link I included. Check before you complain! HK

I didn't complain—I asked a question. Now I'll complain: inserting links to your CV in articles is totally inappropriate. If you want to link to the PDF files, please link to them directly. And please make sure you read the guideline on conflict of interest before you do. You can ask for advice at the relevant noticeboard if the guideline isn't clear. Rivertorch (talk) 20:08, 1 Octo

Then just fix it to the relevant PDF file. No need to write "dead link" while there is an alternative link. Be helpful to the readers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkettani (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You made the mess and you're asking—no, telling—me to clean it up. Okay, I'm willing to do that. But the question of whether the links are appropriate in any form needs to be resolved first. To that end, I have opened a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Please comment there if you like. Please also sign your talk page posts. Rivertorch (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch - Removing or revising the URL to Dr. Kettani's web page per the COIN results is fine. However, you need to leave the remainder of the inline references intact since the COIN discussion does not extend beyond the URL issue. Removal of the remainder of the inline reference requires more. If you remove any of the external link references, you need to be more specific as to what part of WP:EL you are applying to remove the external link. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I removed the external links per at least four criteria of WP:EL. I removed the inline references per WP:RS, not WP:EL, and I did seek a second opinion before I did it. Rivertorch (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Singular

Good point: I guess it would be "from a Sayers line in" not "from a line of Sayers in"... but I've just removed the name entirely, because it's not really necessary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(The above was in reply to this)

Your solution elegantly sidesteps the problem. And just when I was looking forward to another big dramatic controversy over something trivial! (Kidding. Thanks for fixing it.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Physical fitness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, bot. For the record, the link was restored when I reverted an unconstructive edit. The link, which is in the lede, is difficult to disambiguate because the body of the article doesn't make clear what it refers to. The article is little better than a messy stub, and disambiguating a random word or two won't fix it. Rivertorch (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I find non-sentient users can be almost as much trouble as the other sort(s) rest. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever been established whether bots are protected by WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Can you personally attack someone—something—whose personhood is in doubt? Rivertorch (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Given enough provocation, I'm sure I could attack just about anything here. But some bots at least deserve a fair hearing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. In fact, I count at least three bots among my favorite users! Incidentally, what I said in this edit summary was not directed towards you. Damn autofill. See, you get all alliterative and obscure and get away with it. My feeble attempts at cleverness only come back to haunt me. Rivertorch (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

... now don't get me ryled! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Just make sure you don't put Descartes before the horse. Rivertorch (talk) 06:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

whooa!! humdinger!! sorry for gratuitous Banksy-type defacement, bro' Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Rivertorch (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween

Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween Rivertorch! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! ツ Jenova20 (email) 16:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

Thanks! I'll be sure and save some candy for you. Rivertorch (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got loads ta, haven't had any trick or treaters! Amazing really as i saw loads on the way home from work ツ Jenova20^(email) 22:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, I typed a reply at the Mount Everest page, but it's rather long and way off-topic for that article, so I'm just pasting it here, incase you're interested in my answer to your question.. whether it makes your head spin is another question.

Ah that's why it's complicated. I'm moderately anti-monarchy and profusely anti-organised religion, so I tend to support or favour the way the French Revolution and Napoleonic reform changed Europe, destroying absolutism, freeing a lot of "peasants" from poverty (due to unfair taxes), and widening the rift between the Vatican, a much needed move for secularism to succeed, because the church are as bad as royalty for keeping the poor poor, yet they get rich and have power and are corrupt; Napoleon was never anti-religious, but never allowed any homophobic, misogynistic or other bigoted religious dogma to dominate people's lives, beyond what was the status quo for the time, that is. The UK, however, kept its monarchy, its own CofE church leaders, and the problems such a system inherits. I feel proud that we won Waterloo, that's normal patriotism, I wouldn't have wanted Wellington or any more of his troops to die for anyone, but I'm saddened that the UK didn't learn from Europe that not having royalty was in many ways better. I'd cheer for America gaining Independence, as the losses in that war were small compared to the potential of a prolonged Napoleonic War had he won Waterloo – you just know that Britain would never give up or let itself be invaded and the war would have dragged on. In the end I mourn more for Napoleon's actual death in 1821 and the ideologies that died with him, he was cruelly treated in exile, and Britain quickly pushed a new fat king onto France's throne. The fact they kept fighting until they became a Republic shows how much influence the Revolution and Napoleon had for many generations. All this EU bullshit is closer to Hitler's idea of Europe than Napoleon's, we're dictated to by foreign politicians and our own governments seem powerless to prevent abuses of the system, immigration, benefit abuses, expensive legal "human rights" claims by terrorists, murderers, pedos, rapists, drug dealers, and so forth. Napoleon was far from perfect, but he understood one thing – balance.. and I'm confident that Europe would have developed a much fairer set of democratic systems come the 21st century were it not for his defeat. I also doubt WWI and II would have resulted if Napoleon had remained in power.. those wars originate from the nationalism which resulted from his defeat and warring counties becoming more paranoid about their neighbours, the British Empire which followed gradually declined after the world wars, for various reasons. It's a shame France and Britain never saw eye-to-eye, a joined French–British Empire might have done much good for the world, instead they held grudges dating back to medieval days and both lost in the end. In truth, I probably blame Britain more than I blame France but the actual politics behind everything that was going on in the world at that time is not so straight-forward. Strong leadership is sometimes needed to bring everyone together, to reassert common goals, even if it goes against the notions of a true-democracy. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. It hadn't occurred to me that the Napoleonic era's ending the way it did, with certain lessons escaping the victors of Waterloo, caused so many negative repercussions. The two world wars seem a long way removed from the time of Napoleon, but of course cause and effect can be separated by even longer intervals. I guess it's a human shortcoming that nations often refuse to learn from history, willfully choosing instead to "move forward" and smugly ignoring the inconvenient fact that even their arch-enemies might have something to teach them.

I confess to being more than a little dubious about strong leaders. Yes, they can unite rather than divide, but someone always seems to suffer as a result. Castro improved the lot of the majority of his countrymen, but the former aristocracy weren't the only ones who suffered in post-revolutionary Cuba.

I suspect many of the problems with the European Union run parallel to some of the problems with NAFTA and other international agreements: they are profoundly anti-democratic, with binding decisions being made by unelected officials who are completely unaccountable to anyone (except perhaps their unelected peers). Perhaps this could be remedied without scrapping the entire EU; I really don't know. I do see a potential for great good in such alliances, and I think they've borne some fruit already—including in the arena of human rights. Maybe I'd see it differently if I were on the other side of the Pond. Rivertorch (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"I probably blame Britain more than I blame France". I rarely see any news insulting the French or hear of MPs doing so, but there's constant attacks from the French aimed at the Brits. Even before the last Olympics the French argued that we shouldn't have the Olympics because of our food. That's just petty.

I will join in with your EU bashing though. What kind of organisation forces a country to hold another In/Out vote after not liking the first result? Democracy is just a word the voters like to hear, it doesn't have a real meaning today with PRISM, NSA, and the farce that is the EU when it comes to enforcing their rules.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Petty because ils n'aiment pas ta cuisine? Consider: fried fish wrapped in inky newspaper, black pudding, haggis, toad in the hole, spotted dick. (JK. Sort of.) Probably they're still pissed off about Agincourt. (JK again. I think.) All kidding aside, I will say this: France has been on the receiving end of quite a lot of gratuitous criticism over here. In comparison, Britain fares quite well, with some gentle teasing on occasion but never the sort of hate that is applied to France. Rivertorch (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, well black pudding and haggis are generally a Scottish thing and highly unlikely to be been on a takeaway or even eat-in menu in London. Newspaper was banned from use by many local authorities (as opposed to a full UK law) in the '80s as "unhygienic" as ink was first not allowed to come into contact with food without grease-proof paper placed between. Now they all use plain white paper made for food chains. Toad in the hole isn't anything more than sausages in batter, unlike the nation that eats real frog's legs, as well as snails. The less said about Spotted Dick, the better. And funnily enough, England still produces meatballs under the 19th-century name "faggots" – this brand can be found in most supermarkets – there's one for politically-correct people, though I bet it would confuse foreigner shoppers. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The only meat you won't find in a faggot is horse... My grandad still talks about eating sheep brains on toast (it sounds disgusting and makes me ill just thinking about it). Yuck! I tried a kidney once...didn't like it...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it's an offensive slur also causes a bit of confusion ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that is where the French come into their own. A French bassoon player blows the instrument. ~collapse of stout party~

There is only one use as a slur, though, which is the schoolyard epithet hurled at homosexual gentleman and is deliberately offensive, but has dubious etymology. Brains Faggots (brand, not content) are delicious, and offal, well prepared and cooked, is a great food item. I recall sitting down in a restaurant in Paris, being too proud to realise I hadn't a clue what I was ordering, and ending up with a plate of calves' sweetbreads concealed beneath a standard, heavy, French sauce. Delicious, but unexpected. I thought I was getting veal and rice, but no. I got ris de veaux. Fiddle Faddle 10:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"The only meat you won't find in a faggot is horse" – as Alan Davies would say to Stephen Fry... "is that a euphemism for something?" – I'm kidding of course. ;) Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I should have you put in the stocks so the villagers can throw fruit and vegetables at you for that...Making my post a double entendre... How very bad ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Stocks, huh... sounds a bit too BDSM for my liking.. lol! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Stock photo

Stocks photo

Well, there's stock and then there's stock. And then there are stockers. And just when I thought my talk page had become so dull and boring. (I'd even considered trying to cast a spell to conjure up trouble.) Tim, it might have been worse: you could have tried to order a green salad and wound up with snails. And Jenova, you might actually see a triple entendre there, if you squint really, really hard. Rivertorch (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Three? Where's the third? I'm completely innocent and i'll have no one saying otherwise (without proof) ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, I refuse to bite on such "jail bait", let alone get reeled in. "Let those horses be put to good use, I say." yours, spider web and I'm caught in the middle (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Errr.. you've all lost me with this strange banter... where can one acquire an LGB urban dictionary? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

How very dare you!! Just because a man likes to get in the saddle occasionally, you think he's running the donkey sanctuary! well, honestly.

LGB? Elvis? Well, I had heard rumors. But I'm pretty sure Coldplay aren't. (I guess we can rule out the 'L', anyway.) As for HRH, well, I don't even want to know; ignorance is bliss, especially where princesses are concerned. Strange banter ≠ queer banter—at least not necessarily—sometimes it's just strange. (Kind of like sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.)

I don't remember where I found the the triple entendre, innocent one. I can't even find the double now, which probably means I'm too tired to safely edit . . . but the watchlist frighteningly quickly when I don't watch it, so here goes nothing. Rivertorch (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit this edit summary went over my head. Then again, unlike Sir E., I'm sitting down. Rivertorch (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

yes, some broadsheets can be a bit stuffy, can't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Can't view it—some sort of copyright issue over here with EMI. I'm sure I can find a workaround if it's important, but . . . Rivertorch (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You've lost your touch River

The voodoo works!

Today, a Wikipedia editor i've never met, tomorrow THE WORLD! MUAHAHAHA... ツ Jenova20^(email) 09:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

LGBT#Criticism of the term – first paragraph. I'm moderately of that frame of mind, and so prefer "LGB" minus the "T", but not in a disparaging way. And all this "LGBT*(T)Q1Q2GQIAASCP(GSM)" is just ridiculous.. looks like something out of a song they decided to delete from Mary Poppins! I think Congress should pass a motion to make it Fred Phelps' zip code. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally i ignore the letters after LGBT. Take "questioning" for instance. How can that be in any way comparable to the other 4 letters which are still discriminated against and are real unchangeable characteristics? Questioning? Questioning isn't a sexuality, it's an uncertainty of what your sexuality is. Allies? As in straight people? What struggle and legal hurdles did they ever have to overcome? Transgenderism at least is comparable to LG&B and is not a choice but the others appear to be a joke.

I eagerly await Rivertorch putting me in my place. Thanks ツ Jenova20^(email) 10:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to await "The Torch". I have become content with adding the Q, but used as "Queer". I find that "Questioning" is a namby pamby epithet for those who are dipping their toes into the water and just aren't sure if they are anything, really, or if the label fits. I happen to flinch at the use of Queer, but I have learned to get over it. In my youth it was hurled about in the same way that 'faggot' is hurled about now. I have no idea what "I" is, and as for "A", how can asexuality be a sexuality? It's as bizarre as people insisting that atheism is a religion! Fiddle Faddle 10:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I is for Intersex, but i'll admit i don't know what that is... ツ Jenova20^(email) 12:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of Intersex (A rather lengthy article on a difficult/taboo topic) is that a child is born more frequently than one might imagine with ambiguous genitalia. For many years the medics took a hard stare and made a surgical and irreversible decision to "correct" the ambiguity. This was by no means always congruent with the genetic makeup of the emerging person. I find it a topic that is by no means congruent with the "T" of LGBT (though with some similarities of outcome), and much more into surgical and medical malpractice than a sexuality or sexual orientation. I can't believe the trauma for a child and then the adult who has been mis-corrected in this manner. Fiddle Faddle 13:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's similar to transgenderism in a way then. 1 is being trapped in the wrong gender body, while the other is trapped in a unisex body and possibly able to choose which gender they want to be. Thanks for wikilinking ツ Jenova20^(email) 14:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Similar, yes, but somehow more difficult because it was imposed upon you. Imagine being certain that you are a boy, and genetically a boy, but having been born with malformed genitals such that your testes were lodged inside, and mistaken for ovaries, and your penis was mistaken for a large clitoris. Some sort of nearby opening might or might not be a vagina. Now let the scalpel turn you female. You are raised as a girl until puberty when your testicles suddenly start to work, albeit in a limited way because they are not meant to be inside. You grow a beard and your voice breaks. And that's just the physical stuff. I can't even begin to understand the turmoil. I have an M2F cousin and she and I have discussed being T, but incorrectly assigned intersex is harder to imagine living with. Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"You grow a beard and your voice breaks. And that's just the physical stuff" - I think i went to school with her...

Apologies, i couldn't resist that one.

I've not met anyone transgender before as far as i am aware. Having a gender forced on you by a doctor shortly after birth sounds nightmarish and psychologically damaging though. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think she taught me! Who could resist it?

More seriously, Transgender is tough. I have another cousin, vilely and pruriently homophobic, but a closet case if ever I saw one (We'll call him A), who wants to know if our M2F cousin (we'll call her L) is gay! Now the logic of that escapes me. Born a boy, L is a girl but, while a he, married a woman and has fine sons. L enjoys sex, and, as a woman enjoys sex with men. She also, historically, enjoys sex with women. She is clear that she is not able to be labelled. A hates this because he is a bigot (and a closet case). L has a choice about her plumbing. She can have it adapted or leave it be. That doesn't make her a "Pre-operative transsexual" that makes her human, but with the wrong dangly bits.

Morph the conversation now to someone who has compulsory, surgically provided, genitalia, created non consensually around birth time. Your options for surgical adaptaiton are now severely limited. Reconstructing a reconstruction is hard surgery. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a good argument for a 3 gender system - like Germany recently introduced. It provides a good opportunity for the person to choose what they are based on what they feel they are (or just what they want to be), rather than the parent or doctor. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I still don't know a whole lot about the 'T' in LGBT. Years ago, I felt mildly resentful when I started seeing it being tacked on to LGB (which once was more commonly GLB, fwiw) because I saw it as one cohort trying to hitch a ride on the coattails of another cohort that was at last reaping some rewards from a decades-long struggle. Go have your own movement, I thought. In the political arena, I was specifically afraid that tacking transgender rights onto GLB rights bills would mean the bills would fail to pass because legislators couldn't possibly get their heads around the idea. That fear proved groundless, and at some point I reminded myself of something I should have learned years before: that oppression is oppression, regardless of which minority is the victim, and even if the letter 'T' did derail passage of the occasional antidiscrimination law, it still would have been appropriate to include it—if one values ethics over expediency, anyway. And I read enough to know that there are a number of important parallels between societal attitudes toward transgender issues and attitudes toward issues of sexual orientation, so inclusion had a certain logic to it, even though the intersection between transgender issues and GLB issues might seem nonexistent much of the time.

As I see it, the problem with additional letters after the T is related to my only remaining qualm about the T itself, and that is context. If we're talking about a broad social or political movement, then fine—add the whole alphabet, as far as I'm concerned; supporters and sundry hangers-on are welcome, and nothing has made me happier over the past decade or so than to see so many non-GLB people standing up and openly supporting equality. (Anybody remember the proverbial slogan, "Straight but not narrow", on t-shirts and bumper stickers and so on? I rarely see those anymore, maybe because it's just assumed nowadays that non-narrow is the norm.) If we're talking about self-identification, then it makes no sense to use an umbrella term; even G and L cannot be applied to the same person (although of course G and T or L and T could be, which I suppose is another argument for including the T in the first place).

But I'm rambling and I have a turkey to baste. (Seriously. No jokes, please.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the way i feel about the other letters after LGBT. They're all included in the other 4, except allies, which arguably doesn't need a letter since they're probably heterosexual and in that case have never suffered any of the injustices the other four did.

I can't think of Thanksgiving without getting images of the Greswolds in Christmas Vacation fucking theirs up...Happy Turkey Day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't I read somewhere that GLBT became LGBT to show that gender is not important, and this was represented by placing the female "L" before the male "G" to show that men don't always have to take precedence? As for LGB becoming LGBT, I have no problem with equal rights groups such as Stonewall trying to represent everyone, but when it comes to political issues, actual law making, I do feel that there is a major set of differences between what LGB want and want transgenders want. There are far more complex issues to consider, transgenders go through psychological evaluations and all sorts before any reassignment surgery. I think social "acceptance" for transgenderism is probably behind LGB rights, in many respects, and I don't think LGBT rights can be considered a "shared" experience, a transgender person still falls into the category of straight or LGB regardless of what their body becomes, so they really need LGB equality plus extra considerations for surgical reassignment, as well as how they are treated afterwards, e.g. would a M2F person be put in a male or female prison is sentenced, etc? Given how horribly homophobic some of the U.S. appears to be, despite being the "land of freedom", I think throwing LGB and T into the same pot probably gives some of those screwy, right-wing, conservative Republicans (yup, I hate politicians) more leverage to turn down LGBT demands as a whole than having to tackle LGB and T as two separate issues. "LGBT" is too convenient when you need an excuse to target a presumed "culture" given that there are dozens of cultures within each letter of "LGBT" depending on the openness and diversity of the community. I think it's evident that mankind no longer evolves, but rather manipulates his own future, given that a few centuries ago sexuality was strictly only "man" and "woman" aiming to raise a family, but now there are a complex set of physical and mental requirements that determine what a person is and to what degree. I'd prefer a more more simple society, with more defined straight/LGB mindsets, but it seems more and more each day like people want to feel "unique" rather than generically human. I've even read, though it makes me sick to my stomach, that some people consider pedophilia and beastiality forms of sexuality, and believe that it is their "human right" to be recognised rather than punished.. I think NAMBLA is one such vile group. Just another set of morons who give those Bible-thumping politicians an opportunity to claim that anyone pro-LGBT is of the same mind and therefore a "risk" to society. Heh.. democratic politics.. it's all a load of bollocks! Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I have been told, the North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association was initially embraced by the then Gay Liberation Front because it was somehow seen as a reasonable fellow traveller. This unwise judgment did untold harm to ordinary homosexual folk. South Park was right. "But dude, you have sex with KIDS!" By the time a distance was put between them and GLF the damage was done, and it has taken a long and sensible struggle to overcome much of that horrible liaison. Today only halfwits believe homosexuality and sex with kids are related.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2013

Ugh, how did we end up here? You do realize this all started when someone suggested that native Nepalese or Tibetans might have wanted to climb Mount Everest before the British arrived! Responding briefly to Marcus, you make some good points but you might be placing too much emphasis on gender-reassignment surgery; as I understand it, transgender people are transgender regardless of which sex's physical characteristics their bodies conform to. And you sort of lost me at "a few centuries ago sexuality was strictly only 'man' and 'woman' aiming to raise a family". Maybe I misunderstand you, but I think sexuality has never been strictly only that. Not in recorded history, anyway, and probably not before. Rivertorch (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

A friend notified me that various groups (some who love him, and some who hate him, all off wikipedia I hope) were claiming Mandela was an atheist even though he was a Protestant. I forgot that Mandela's article is in semi-lock so they can change it. --Protostan (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. All's well that ends well. Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday message

Fiddle Faddleis wishing you a Merry Christmas (quite possibly a White Christmas.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!

Thank you! I can't help wondering: how exactly does one "spread the Christmas spirit"? Rivertorch (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} wishes you and yours

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....

Diolch yn fawr! Rydych yn ystyriol iawn. Bydded i carnau o ceirw Siôn Corn guro rhythmig ar eich to heno.

Gyda phob dymuniad da,

Rivertorch (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Dim hypergysylltiadau glyfar?

Wow, yr wyf yn gwneud argraff fawr!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC) p.s.as if I would do that - that's so Siôn Corny!

Yo, I'm Lord Kitschener; even my food is tacky. But seriously, folks, it's so easy to make a da argraff these days. Sigh. Hey, speaking of tack, guess what I found over at Commons. And we call ourselves a civilized species! What's next, tinned Santa meat? Rivertorch (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Haha, how comforting. Yes, I always like to look like I'm well printed, or so Google tells me. Ceisiwch byw yng Nghymru. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, I think I'll order some. The crowning touch for my holiday Smaugåsbord! Rivertorch (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

hahaha, how that is funny! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Photo Discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion regarding the better photo for an article Infobox? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Rivertorch (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Umm...

Not sure if you read it but the content i deleted included a legal threat that a user had sent the IP of another to the SPLC to sue them, and referred to the user as "homogenous kooks" or something. Admittedly I'm not an experienced user, but if that's not personal attacks and threats then I don't know why you have these rules in the first place, sorry Tátótát (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't scrutinize every post; I skimmed them. There were a lot. I'll look at the page more thoroughly when I get a few spare minutes, but even if there are one or two posts there that merit removal, wholesale removal isn't appropriate. And don't be sorry—I appreciate your contacting me and your trying to fix a potential problem you'd identified. Rivertorch (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(The above pertains to recent edits at Talk:Islam in Denmark and a related warning I left on Tátótát's talk page.) Rivertorch (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed the entire page carefully, I do not think it would be helpful to remove any of the old posts at this time. The threat you refer to isn't credible, and while there are a handful of personal attacks, they are interspersed with posts from other editors, which makes them impossible to remove without destroying the structural integrity of the discussion. They're years old now, and no one (including an administrator who was present) felt the need to remove them at the time. Basically, what we have there is someone who went on a silly, over-the-top rant. Their main account was blocked and no one has edited from their IP in over three years. Other than maybe archiving it all, I don't really see that anything can or should be done there. Rivertorch (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Older talk archive | Newer talk archive | Current talk page