User talk:Rivertorch/Archive18

RIVERTORCH TALK ARCHIVE LATE 2017 (BACK ON THE CHAIN GANG)

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

Three questions

Rivertorch, can you please give me a straight answer on this: are you objecting to the wording "is a transgender person who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman" or not? Why do you keep accusing me of flogging a dead horse etc when (as I've stated at least ten times now) I have CHANGED my proposed wording based on your concerns? Why do you keep insisting that I am the only one advocating this wording when a look at the beginning of the talk page discussion shows several editors (Flyer22 Reborn, SusunW) expressing acceptance of this wording? Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Colonial Overlord: (1) Yes, I believe that the wording that you quote above is suboptimal. (2) Because you're stating things at least ten times—the textbook definition of flogging a dead horse. (3) You're the one who has consistently been advocating for a change in the wording. Some users may find your revised proposal more acceptable than your original proposal, but it's still suboptimal. Is that "straight" enough for you? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

SMILE!! 9 July 2017

Hello Rivertorch, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

About My Klux Klan .

Hi Rivertorch , Sorry for this question but I gotta ask u . Why did u reverted my edit in the article of KKK , is it really unnecessary ? . TDLWH (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There were several reasons, two of which I touched on in my edit summary. If you really need more detail...all right. Try reading the sentence aloud with your change. Does that sound like standard English syntax? We don't insert adjectives willy-nilly just because they're apt; it destroys the flow of a sentence to do that. If one wanted to add the word "racist" to that sentence, it would have to go after "distinct", not before. However, the sentence goes on to talk about "extremist reactionary positions such as white supremacy, white nationalism, anti-immigration and—especially in later iterations—Nordicism". This makes the racist nature of the organization quite clear, and should obviate any need for the word. Sometimes less is more. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Truly a no-brainer. Good luck with the mop—hope it doesn't turn you mean and grouchy! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No way under the sun. I edit for the pleasure of helping to create a free encyclopedia. If it is not fun, I just log off. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A sound modus operandi. I've been moving toward something similar but I'm not quite there yet. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

re:July 2017

LMAO. this user is a persistent editor as well, probably Magic9Ball's friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.43.23 (talk) 70.79.43.23

On this day, 11 years ago...

Hey, Rivertorch. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Lepricavark. A certain someone who keeps forgetting my birthday could take a lesson from you and the Committee. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a great day and I hope the certain someone remembers soon. Lepricavark (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

SRS title change to GCS talk page

Hey Rivertorch, thanks for posting to the talk page earlier. Did you get a chance to look at my response to your request for international (English-speaking) sources. I posted a multitude of sources from countries around the world. UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted yesterday and haven't had a chance to look at anything. Will try now. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've been socking. Never mind. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your support at Teahouse on August 2nd. It was really helpful to understand. Sorry for late reply since I was in the summer vacation. Best regards, Pinablue JPN (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thank you! I'm glad I could help, and I hope you had an enjoyable vacation. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Bomarzo Monster

I found that image on your user page, and I liked it so much that I stole it for my own! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A bit Dantean perhaps but not inapt, at least sometimes. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Slough

Can you tell me why my insertion of Heathrow reference in Slough article keeps getting removed. Slough is closed to Heathrow and surely this is a relevant snippet of information? Also the photo of Slough trading estate is ugly and reinforces negative stereotypes? Lennonfan1 (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I can tell you, yes, but let's not do it here. The notice at the top of this page says, "If I leave you a message on your talk page, please reply there." I left a message on your talk page, so that's where I'd prefer to conduct this conversation. Better still, if you follow the advice I left on your talk page, you'll read WP:BRD and then open a discussion at Talk:Slough. It is there, at the article's talk page, that questions about improving the article are settled, and it is there that consensus will be shown either for or against the content you keep inserting. I'm not the only one who has reverted your edits, so this cannot be resolved on my talk page or yours. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 01:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Washington mountment

Hi so sorry about this I add Washington monument I am autism so sorry about this. GAJJR (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Just please be careful. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy to make your acquaintance

Just want to say again it's a pleasure to work with someone knowledge and reasonable, with whom I may not always agree but who makes his points with care and collegiality. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I think some of our fellow Wikipedians might disagree with that characterization, but thanks. It's nice of you to say. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No Hornets Nest

Apologies if I gave you a rough ride back there. I was trying to make my point as forcefully as I could. The truth is that I've nothing but respect for people such as yourself that are prepared to try and sort out touchy problems here on Wiki. Best regards, David. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's gracious of you. It's one of those situations where everyone has a valid point, and we all seem to feel strongly but for different reasons. I expect it will be resolved soon. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there, Rivertorch. I like your user page and you may well find yourself slightly plagiarised, design-wise. Just a friendly advance notice. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You know, I can't claim much credit for anything that works in my user space. It's all down to my state-of-the-art HTML coding expertise circa 1999 (!) plus endless trial and error with scary wikimarkup. And an occasional snippet of code I found on someone else's user page, of course. So plagiarize away! (I see you've gone for vivid, versus muted, colors. This works well with the Papyrus characters.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reversion to some edits at Henrietta Lacks

Re: your edit & edit summary: Besides that fact that these 'corrections' were not a clear improvement, the editor who instituted them also changed a direct quote in a reference.... Shearonink (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was well-meant but it was certainly sloppy. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Korean War veteran

Dear User:Rivertorch, Thank you for your update about the article. I am planning to update the Korean War regarding part of the article with additional contents of Korean War veteran. (including U.K., USA and other countries. ). Please let me know your opinion for the adding the subsection about Korean War veteran. As you were interested in the contents, I think it would be efficient to receive your thought in advance before adding the sub-paragraph on the Korean War .

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for touching base. I'm a bit pressed for time but will respond substantively later. Remind me if I don't! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Goodtiming8871, I looked over your edits there again. Here's what I think. It's perfectly reasonable to have a section on veterans and also war memorials. I'm sure you noticed there are six memorials already linked in the "See also" section, so we have at least six articles on such memorials. My suggestion is to start small, with a summary—for instance, how many such memorials there are worldwide, if you can find a source for that, and just mentioning the best-known ones. Singling out one in Kentucky just seems strange; even if you're going to expand it later, the article shouldn't be left in that state. Veterans and memorials are two different topics and probably shouldn't be addressed in the same section.

Also, your prose was jam-packed with grammatical errors, some of them serious. It's up to you, but I'd be happy to work with you to fix that kind of thing before you post it to the article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Rivertorch, Thank you for your valuable feedback and I would keep in mind on my next edit on any topics on Korean war.

I appreciate you reminding me my mistakes on grammar ( I found about five mistakes on grammar via Grammarly Application- example: Subject-Verb Agreement Errors and Sentence Fragments, etc.) I should have used the Grammarly APS in advance. Although I have a paid account via Grammarly, I just forgot to use the application at night time on that date after meeting with 85 years old Australian Korean War veteran after several hours of long country road night driving. Regarding your beautiful writings on Wikipedia, personally, I respect and envy your well structured & summarized English sentence. I am aware of that I might not be able to reach anything close to your English level during my life time as a non-native English speaker. With Grammarly APS, it is only able to fix my grammar mistake, not my sentence structure. However, I would keep trying to improve my capability, as English is the common language on our blue planet :)

With respect to your suggestion on Wikipedia, I also think that the edit summaries should be mandatory. With this measure, we would be able to figure why certain edits were made and understand their rationales in the first place in the long term. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, edit summaries are wonderful. To date, I have only found one Wikipedian who uses them more consistently than I do. (Not to brag or anything...) When I mentioned "summary" above, however, I meant a summary or synopsis of the subject to be covered in the new section.

Like spell checkers, grammar apps are imperfect, but more so. The main thing is to make the meaning clear (which I clearly didn't do with my use of the word "summary"!) so that someone can fix any errors of grammar without introducing errors of fact. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Here in Wikipedia, I think many jewelery-like talents make this place useful for the global community. I think you are a blue diamond. Can not everyone be a blue diamond? :)

Regarding the subsection on the Korean War- Aftermath, Please let me know your thought about it.

• Create a summary style - Korean War veterans concerning the current survivals and their story over the global (example, UK, Australia and USA etc.)

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank, I'll look it over and respond later. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:EL

Where is it chiseled in stone Thou Shalt Not Link to Fandom ?Wikkileaker (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wikkileaker. Contrary to popular rumor, my psychic powers are sporadic at best, and I can intuit the meaning of cryptic messages only infrequently. This isn't one of those instances, so without combing laboriously through your contributions I remain at a loss. If you'd care to provide a diff or two, I'm sure I could find something to say. External links sections are frequently used as portals into the great Wikipedia junk heap of trivial banalities, after all. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

George White (Merchant)

Hi Editor, Can you please explain what it is you require. I am sure that I am descended from George White though I have as yet to link up a 65 year gap. My sources are originally from family stories then a few years research using various publications , “Siamese White, Maurice Collis” “English Intercourse with Siam in the Seventeenth Century” “Samuel White Early English Books Online “ as well as internet articles relating to the subject. Regards Tothaman

Thanks for responding, Tothaman. (I wish you'd replied on your talk page, where I made first contact, but no matter.) Please type four tildes (~~~~) to sign your username and provide a timestamp when posting to a talk page.

I spent some time last year beginning to clean up the article, and I had assumed that there were some solid sources underlying the content, but what you've said now is not especially encouraging. The content of all articles must be verifiable and supported by reliable, published sources that are independent of their subjects, not original research; these are among Wikipedia's most basic policies and have been in place for well over a decade. Family stories definitely don't make the grade. The three sources you mention above might work, but you haven't provided enough information about them. Are they books? If so, additional information (e.g., author, year, publisher) is needed. If they're articles, we'd need author, publication title, publication date, volume, number, and page numbers. All of that information needs to be placed in inline citations, so that readers can determine what statements in the article are being attributed to what source. This is the only way that the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia articles can be ensured in the first place, and then maintained over subsequent years, as anonymous users from around the world add, remove, and modify content. It isn't optional.

I don't want to be discouraging—you've obviously made a considerable effort to record what you know of George White—but this situation does need to be corrected. Rather than deleting the article and starting over from scratch, let's see if we can fix it. It would be very helpful at this point if you would remove all statements in the article that you don't think can be verified through a published source (online or print). Then indicate what portions of the remaining text (sentences, paragraphs, or entire sections) are supported by what source. Don't worry about formatting citations properly—I or someone else will do that—but please be as thorough as you can. If you think you can do this, I'm more than willing to help with the details. If not, then you may want to consider posting your original research about George White somewhere else on the Internet, and we may need to look into either deleting the article or paring it down to a stub. Mr. White is an interesting historical figure, so I hope we can work to bring the article within policy. In the meantime, if you'd like a second opinion about this, or if you have any questions about Wikipedia policy or process, please visit the Teahouse, Wikipedia's forum for new users. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

George White (Merchant)

Hi Editor, I have taken on board your comments and I summit them to you now, if you would be kind enough to go over them and see what else is needed, As to my statement about family connections, I did not put in this essay any of it as I was only told that we were descended from the brother of Samuel White and the other thing was when Samuel returned he would walk around town with what must have been his Siamese concubine, this coursing an adverse reaction amongst good society. The rest I have gleaned from my research most of which was from the book by Maurice Collis.

Regards Tothaman. 

extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Early life White was born in Bristol, England, during the English Civil War and was the son of a merchant trader. (Siamese White, Maurice Collis, Penguin Books,1936) White gained his Master's Certificate and set sail for India in 1670. He used his or his family's ship and took up residence in Fort St George, Madras (now Chennai). ( Siamese White, Maurice Collis, Penguin Books,1936) India When White arrived in the Far East, he was not employed by the East India Company but worked as a coastal trader supplying and transporting goods from as far as the Persian Gulf. This appears to have been acceptable to the Company, though he was regarded as an "interloper". The laws of the charter given to the Company provided that any English ships trading between the East of India and England might be seized and fined £1000. However, since White was working on coastal trade, he was not subject to the penalty and developed an acceptable working relationship with the Company. Siam On White's outward journey east of India, he employed a Greek man named Constantine Phaulkon as his assistant. Phaulkon had left his native country at a young age and had worked on several ships of different nationalities. He was a gifted linguist and very bright. White and Phaulkon worked together in Siam, where Phaulkon rose, in time, to be the first Minister to the Court of King Narai of Siam. George White was recommended to the East India Company for his knowledge of the trade in India by Richard Barnaby, the Head of the Company factor (factory) in Madras. The two went on to be good friends and trading partners. In 1676, whilst White was living in Ayutthaya [1], the capital of Siam at that time, George White’s wife left their mansion in Fort St. George to join him in Siam. ( Siamese White, Maurice Collis, Penguin Books,1936 In 1681, the Siamese Court ordered the forfeiture of White's house and factor that he administered for the East India Company. The order was made due to non-payment of rent on his house. White had refused to pay as this was not in the original agreement. Barnaby, being worried for White's safety, sent three armed Englishmen to protect him. This astonished White, as he was quite happy and felt that he could handle the situation. The Company paid the debts owed and his stocks were released. In 1681, the Dutch merchant Van Vliet accused White of lending Phaulkon a considerable amount of money which belonged to the Company. The evidence for this was destroyed in the fire which caused the factor to burn down. Barnaby, who had been at the factor a few days before the fire had accused a Mr. Potts for his negligence, as Potts had tried to implicate White. Both White and Barnaby left Siam in 1681. Return to India White later went into a joint venture with Potts and Barnaby. It is believed that White had a coloured servant who served Mr. Strangh and a Mr. Yale in 1863 on their trip to India. They had been sent by the East India Company from London with letters of authority to investigate the Company's affairs in India. They had the power to allow it to continue or order it to cease trading. Return to England White returned from India in 1681, sailing in his own ship, the Phoenix. Thomas Povey sent a letter of introduction to Sir Robert Southwell, stating that White had recently returned from the East as a well-educated man of the world, being truly worthy of his patronage, and regretting the losses to George White and his brother Samuel this being ordered by the East India Company, which may have been more than £40,000.( National Library of Ireland) Samuel White George White's younger brother, Samuel "Siamese" White, was a notorious trader in the Far East. With the recommendation of Constantine Phaulkon, Samuel became the administrator of the port of Mergui (now part of Burma). Through Samuel's mishandling and greed, he was responsible, in 1687, for the uprising in Mergui and the subsequent slaughter of 87 Englishmen. George White and Thomas Povey, who was the brother of Mary Povey the late wife of Samuel White, were appointed Samuel White's attorney and guardian to his two daughters, Mary White (b. 1680, d. 1716) "who married John Wittewronge 1673–1722" and Susan White, (b. 1677), who "married John Gumley 1673–1722". Money was sent home and they were to purchase landed estates on behalf of their wards in case he did not survive or, if he did, he would live the life of a country gentleman. Samuel White died after returning to England on 7 January 1689. George White and Francis Heath were appointed the executors of Samuel White's will. In 1689 George White pursued the East India Company over the seizure of £40,000 of Samuel White's assets and answered charges brought by a Francis Davenport, who had stated that Samuel White had acted illegally and had seized the Company's goods as well as imprisoned their employees. White sent a paper to Parliament answering an earlier paper written by Francis Davenport and the East India Company; this case was settled by the Company out of court. Opposition to East India Company Between 1687 and 1691, while living in London, White vigorously opposed the East India Company (at that time governed by Sir Josiah Child), which had enforced a monopoly in the East; George White then sent a petition to Parliament on behalf of his brother Samuel White and several members of parliament.( Samuel White, Early English Books) In his book The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India, Philip J Stern relates Macaulay's observations that "Sir Josiah Child was likened to every villain imaginable – Oliver Cromwell, Louis XIV, Goliath and Satan", and who was tarred as the "Despot on Leadenhall Street". This shows the depth of feeling against the Company. The war with Siam does not seem to be the main factor in the Company's charter being withdrawn, but the imposition of martial law and infliction of capital punishment that was enacted in response to the unrest that had broken out in St Helena. According to Soren Mentz's book The English Gentlemen Merchants at work (Madras and the City of London), George White became a member of parliament at this time. This enabled him to lobby fellow MPs in aid of his cause. In 1691, White wrote and published a pamphlet titled "An account of the trade to the East Indies"; this was very well received, translated into Dutch, and was still being reprinted one hundred years later. Final return to India In 1694, Parliament passed a law stating that any Englishman could trade in India or China so long as he has not been barred from doing so by Parliament. George White took full advantage of this and set sail for the East. However, upon arrival he found that what was law in England was still treason in India. He left his ship and travelled overland to Surat, where he learnt that his ship and cargo had been sold to the Company by his principals. To make matters worse, he had to plead that he was a servant of the Company to save himself from prison. Shortly after this, he departed from India, never to return. Reformed East India Company George White was one of the leading forces behind the setting up of the rival company in 1698 known as “English Company Trading to East India” It was floated under the state backed indemnity of £2 million, this new company could not compete with the power of the old East India Company as powerful directors of the original (EIC) took out shares in the new Co of sum £315,000 giving them influence on the board of directors, It could only make a small percentage of the trade carried out and merged with the original Co in 1708 in a tripartite indenture involving both of the Companies and the state. The amalgamated Company became known as “United Company of Merchants of England Trading in India” George White was part of the Court of Directors in the new “English Company trading to East India” that had the responsibility of deciding the rules for the new directors. The new directors had to put up a sum of £2000 without interest as well as being approved by the existing directors. References • Centre, UNESCO World Heritage. "Historic City of Ayutthaya". • English Intercourse with Siam in the Seventeenth Century, 1890, John Anderson, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, Ltd. • Siamese White, Maurice Collis, 1936, Penguin Books. • Reflections on the Scandalous Paper, Entitled, the Answer of the East India Company to Two Printed Papers of Mr Samuel White, 1689. Printed by: Early English Books. • The English Gentlemen Merchants at work (Madras and the City of London). Soren Mentz's —

Preceding unsigned comment added by Tothaman (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see that you've copied and pasted the article with added sources above. Sometime in the near future, I'll put in references based on those sources, and see where we go from there. In future, it would be easier if you simply added the sources directly to the article. This help page tells you how to do that, but I did say I was willing to do the formatting if you just add them. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Fight The Power

Hi, this is edomrak52 asking why my reference wasn't sourced. Just letting you know I listened to the mix and heard "Oh,jam!" which is proof that it was the first song to sample it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edomrak52 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Edomrak52. This is pertaining to the question you raised at the help desk, I guess. (permalink) I didn't say it wasn't sourced; I said it linked to a probable copyright violation. If you don't understand what that means, please post again at the help desk (in the same section, below my reply there) so that other editors can assist you. I'm here only briefly today. (By the way, please type four consecutive tildes (~~~~) to sign posts to the help desk or on talk pages.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversion on Tasmanian devil

Hello Rivertorch: I reverted your reversion because it undid some fixes made by InternetArchiveBot. I'll manually undo the problematic edits that I think were the target of your reversion. Cheers, Kbseah (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I was in a hurry and didn't check what the bot had done, but my experience is that bots usually return at some point and redo whatever it was they were doing. But thanks—whatever it was, it's always better when a human does it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Cuttlefish talk page

Why did you delete the comments, why didn't you just move them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh my, things are getting complicated, aren't they? I know Wikipedia is esoteric in many ways, but please try to learn the ropes. First things first: you again neglected to use a signature. Sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). And you replied on my talk page instead of your own, splitting the discussion, despite a clear statement on my talk page asking users not to do that.

Quoting from what I said on your talk page: "I saw no way to do a simple fix. If you'd like to restore your comments, please pleace them at the bottom of the thread, indent properly, and sign your post. See Help:Talk pages for guidance on using talk pages." It was good advice. Until one is familiar with how talk pages work, it's all too easy to make a complete hash out of a thread. From what I could tell from the diff (and I confess I was in a hurry, I might have been wrong), what you wrote was not in one neat block of text that I could cut and paste. In any event, you left the thread in a condition wherein no one reading it could easily tell who had written what. You're welcome to restore your comments, of course—just make sure you don't mess up someone else's comments in the process! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Human

The last study: 300,000-315,000 years ago. 200,000 years is old data. Source: several publications and wikipedia. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgx8253 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cgx8253: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The several publications may be, but you need to cite them when making such edits. If a reliable source is already cited for the figure you're replacing, it's probably better to open a discussion on the article's talk page to explain exactly why you think the replacement figure is correct. In any event, at a bare minimum you need to use edit summaries; if you don't, you can expect your edits to be summarily reverted. As I said on your talk page, if you keep changing sourced content without explanation, you will wind up blocked. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

Another thing. You've been here long enough to know how to leave a signature and time stamp when you post on a talk page. And I presume you can read, so it's unclear to me why you're replying on my talk page to a message I left on your talk page when it is requested at the top of my talk page that you not do that. (It's only Wikipedia, not rocket science.) Nevertheless, I thank you for responding rather than simply blanking your talk page once again. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Ed Buck

Are you the IP address that's been adding tags to the lede please? If so, this should be discussed on the article talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me you're joking, Zigzig20s. Either that or strike the above. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think so, since you're logged in. But the IP address tagged the "African American" thing in the lede literally 5 seconds after you brought it up. I thought you may have been logged out by accident, which can happen.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

... because it's impossible that I saw the issue raised and thought it to be a fair point? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, both are possible. The reliable third-party sources mention that Moore was black/African American. I don't see why we would redact that fact. We're just going by the weight of RS...Zigzig20s (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) A reliable source mentioning a fact does not in itself make it pertinent for inclusion. But, unlike your false accusations against Rivertorch, I don't think that's a discussion for this forum. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No accusation whatsoever. Just a good faith question. We always assume good faith here on Wikipedia!Zigzig20s (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@IP: It's a blindingly obvious point. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One would hope it to be obvious to most people, anyway... (I should note that I saw the AFD before seeing the article, though.) 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no idea. Before writing this reply, I had visited the article exactly once, between visits to the Afd page. Great minds think alike, I guess. Whoever they are, I wish they'd create an account. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

IP: We don't need to cite that the Arizona Republic is Arizona's largest newspaper, because we have a wikilink for that. Look at The Arizona Republic. I added this tidbit for you anyway, since you weren't sure who was calling him a "household name" (even though the RS was in-lined in the body of the text!).Zigzig20s (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So one wouldn't need to cite any fact about biology in an article about science provided that it's cited in the Biology article and a wikilink is provided? And I was aware of who was making the claim, but the nature of the claim required in-text attribution rather than the claim being made in Wikipedia's voice. But, again, this is hardly the forum for this discussion. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, aren't conspiracy and fake news websites one and the same? I've changed it to "conspiracy", but I'm not sure if that's entirely necessary...Zigzig20s (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(more edit conflicts. my talk page hasn't been this popular in ages.) It's not a question of redaction; it's a question of exercising editorial discretion and omitting completely irrelevant facts. Sort of akin to writing an article on Jane Doe, saying that she drove a car that collided with a gay man or a Muslim woman or a blue-eyed child. It is conceivable that there is some significance to the escort's being African American, but the article doesn't suggest that there is, which makes it gratuitous.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I haven't said anything about household names or The Arizona Republic. In any event, I'm in the midst of another project over at another article, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion, for a few minutes at least. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was responding to the IP address. I need to get on with my day too. Happy editing!Zigzig20s (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

OK then. I wish you the same. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 08:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Rivertorch|<font color="#339933">'''Rivertorch'''</font>]]<small><small><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Rivertorch|<font color="#FF0066">FIRE</font>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Rivertorch|<font color="#0066FF">WATER</font>]]</sub></small></small> → Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER

to

[[User:Rivertorch|<span style="color: #339933;">'''Rivertorch'''</span>]]<small><small><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Rivertorch|<span style="color: #FF0066;">FIRE</span>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Rivertorch|<span style="color: #0066FF">WATER</span>]]</sub></small></small> → Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get to it in the next few days, Anomalocaris, but your suggested code puts me over the character limit, which would necessitate a redesign. Are these lint errors visible to anyone? I understand that certain tags are deprecated, but are they causing any actual known issues? I assume that the developers would prompt some sort of official announcement if that were the case, but perhaps not. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, when strings are long I usually check to make sure they are below the 255-character limit. Here is a string that does the same thing in 248 characters:

[[User:Rivertorch|<b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b>]]<small><small><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Rivertorch|<span style="color: #F06;">FIRE</span>]]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Rivertorch|<span style="color: #06F">WATER</span>]]</sub></small></small> → Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER

As for the official announcement, see: WP:Linter. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

Hi, dear Rivertorch. My name is Vlado, pleasure to meet you. I just noticed you removed parts of my contribution to "ethnic cleansing", as far as I can see for inadequate sourcing. What needs to be substantiated in your view? It seems to me I gave clear references for all the statements I made, but would appreciate further advice. All best, Vladimir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Lj Petrovic (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, the main problem is that you appear to be citing yourself, which is rarely a good idea. If you are an authority on a topic and have written a scholarly work published in a reliable source, it's better to make a request on the article's talk page so that others may review the source and, per consensus, add it. Ideally, you will now open a discussion at Talk:Ethnic cleansing (in a new section at the bottom of the page). Feel free to take what I removed from the article and paste it in on the talk page. And please try to use edit summaries whenever possible. (Pinging 23 editor, who reverted you earlier, just to make them aware of this conversation). Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello and thank you~for answering my question at the teahouse

Hi Rivertorch, about my help question: who will help me with my article rated C artilce here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_(1963_novel)

I appologize for only answering you now to my question at the Teahouse. Just this once I was really terribly busy - and thought I get around in time to answer you, but it is only now I can do it. I admit that I felt much better afterwards and thought there is still hope for that article. :-) Thank you for all your suggestions, they are really helpful. About the French quotations. Well, that should not be an excuse on my part, but you see, on the German Wikipedia, I was told it was necessary to do give the original language quote too. So I thought it would be the same on the English Wikipedia. I shall delete the French and get rid of those bullets. I shall also change from Review to Reviews. I would be lovely if I could contact you here again and yes I appreciate very much help. Have a nice Weekend, kindly Laramie1960 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Laramie1960. I've been incredibly busy, too, and have barely had time to check my watchlist over the past several weeks. I don't know if you're familiar with WikiProjects, but they are informal groups of Wikipedia users who are interested in particular topics. One such group is WikiProject Books. It's not very active but there has been some recent activity, and you might consider leaving a message on their talk page asking for help with the article. The more specific your request, the more likely you are to receive a response. I'll also take a closer look at it when I have time, but this may not happen for several more weeks. (Feel free to remind me if I forget.) But honestly, a Wikipedian with so few edits writing a C-class article is quite impressive. I hope you'll stick around and write some more. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Good evening Rivertorch. Again, I am so pleased to see that there are such nice Wikipedians on Wikipedia. I had felt very discouraged when the article was twice re-jected and thought that my English was after all not as good as I had always believed. (I am from Switzerland...) Thank you for your suggestion to go and have a look at the WikiProjects about books. I am sure that would be a great help. I am never one who does not accept good advices. We can only learn from mistakes is my motto. When you find the time in the future, it would be awesome if you had also a look at the article. Thanks again and until soon, best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rivertorch. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Punctual as always. Grrrrrr. Oh well, at least I haven't voted yet. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Marlene Dietrich edit

My intent was to correct the false information about the Dietrich romance taking place during his marriage to Crawford, which officially ended years prior. I realize that it includes a reference but it cannot possibly be correct unless the referenced material suggests they somehow met years before they did and had an affair. So I removed that and added factual information about the Dietrich romance from Fairbanks Jr's autobiography Salad Days which I incorrectly did not reference as I did not have it with me. I guess my question is how to handle the false information even when it is referenced? Thanks Rjt378 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Rjt378. Thanks for discussing, and sorry for the sluggish nature of my reply; I've been offline for a bit (and I'm not really here here even now). This is about Marlene Dietrich. From a quick glance at the diffs, I'm not quite sure that you're right; there's no timeline or sequence explicitly given. My advice: get a hold of the book again if you can, then open a discussion at Talk:Marlene Dietrich. Keep in mind, however, that an autobiography is usually not the most reliable of sources. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Of course this is about my Marlene Dietrich edit pertaining to Fairbanks Jr. Common knowledge as well as divorce records show that Fairbanks Jr's marriage to Crawford officially ended in 1934 after a one year separation as was the law back then (perhaps just California law). So the romance with Dietrich did not happen until 1936 and ended around a year later. Rjt378 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's possible that I'm being incredibly dense (it wouldn't be the first time), but why does the timeline of the romance depend upon the date of the divorce? In any event, unless it's something along the lines of the sky being blue, we don't rely on common knowledge when writing articles. Divorce records are primary sources, and we don't usually rely on those either. But this discussion really should happen at Talk:Marlene Dietrich, where other editors who watch the article will be likely to find it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's far more possible that I am the one being dense and I will take this to the Dietrich talk. What we know is how long Fairbanks Jr was married, when the other relationship happened based on the accounts of the two people involved in their own biographies, autobiographies and even movies based on Dietrich, as well as other books and movies based on Hollywood actors that were their friends. They were also photographed together dozens of times during that one year period 1936-37. It's fairly common knowledge to anyone interested in Hollywood during that period and it's the reason I went out of my way to correct such a glaring wrong. I just wanted to know if it as simple as removing a referenced edit and replacing it with another. There is already someone at the Dietrich talk suggesting that we translate and copy and paste the entire German Dietrich entry as the English one is so full of inconsistencies, largely based on known Hollywood biographers who made a career out of sensationalism and misinformation. Thanks for your time. Rjt378 (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not very Saturnalian these days, but thank you! (The mind is willing, at any rate.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for thanking me. However, they won't stop. You may or may not want to take care of this. "Private prisons" is fully cited. Otherwise, perhaps "privatized mass incarceration" could do!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe their text could simply be moved back to the end of the first paragraph in the lede? I am not sure. Your third opinion would be good. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone else just reverted it back to normal. Let's hope it remains stable.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm just playing catch-up after being offline for three days, Zigzig20s, so it may take me a while to come up to speed. My objections are that the content they favor is inappropriate for the lede and that the wording—"corrections" rather than "prisons"—sounds too euphemistic to be encyclopedic. Anyway, it looks as if the current version is OK. If they change it again, they'll need an edit-warring template. (For the cyberarchaeologists of future epochs, we're talking about Nashville, not Miley.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently they're calling it "civics" now.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Who are "cyberarchaeologists of future epochs"?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "civics". Doublespeak was a thing worth noting in the 20th century. Now, in the 21st, pathological lying is expected at the highest levels, so I suppose we're supposed to accept that sort of thing without question. Maybe I'm getting oversuspicious in my old age, but the edit summary here raised a couple of rather large red flags for me. I think they're probably heading for a block, whether for socking or undisclosed COI or just good old fashioned edit warring, it's anyone's guess. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. Cyberarchaeologists of future epochs are the ones who'll sit there scratching their heads, wondering what discussions were about and proposing implausible hypotheses, unless we make it easy for them and leave clues. I occasionally have reason to delve into my talk archives, and even I don't remember half of what was going on a mere year ago. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have other problems: I often read an article, look at the history, and realize that I'm the one who created it. I simply do not remember it. And then I often click on an article like Luke Lea (senator) and can't believe whoever created it had the nerve to leave out in-line references. It will take so long to reference it...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

OMG, that's an enviable problem to have. Over the years, I've rarely gotten further than planning to create an article. If I'd arrived here a couple years earlier than I did, I'm pretty sure I'd have been much more of a content creator, but much of the lowest-hanging fruit was picked before I stumbled upon the scene. As Wikipedia has matured, the bar has been raised so significantly with regard to sourcing that I've found myself increasingly daunted at the thought of starting an article about a relatively obscure topic. As for Luke Lea (senator), well, that was begun in 2004, when inline refs were a luxury. It was the Wild West around here back then. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lea apparently owned most of what later became Belle Meade, Tennessee, the South's richest town. He deserves a better article.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

We should probably try to recreate the Belle Meade Country Club, but we'll need lots of RS and a C-status article I think. It was previously deleted by only three editors.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Zigzig20s, I've been spreading myself a bit too thin lately and haven't had a chance to even follow the links yet. Things should settle down in a few days. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the president played golf at the Belle Meade Country Club when he was negotiating for the Genesco building (now the Trump Tower)...Zigzig20s (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Heh. I don't know. The topic nauseates me just a bit. Is there likely to be, um, presidential content in the Belle Meade Country Club article? Did you write the deleted article, by the way? If not, have you asked to read it? I'm not opposed to helping with it, but I'm beginning a somewhat involved process of refocusing my efforts around here, so things may be a little chaotic for a while. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it was deleted in 2005, before I joined Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Rivertorch!!


Hi Rivertorch, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Davey2010. Merry Christmas to you, too. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Older talk archive | Newer talk archive | Current talk page