User talk:Rivertorch/Archive2

RIVERTORCH TALK ARCHIVE 2008

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

Your Rough fish edits

Thanks for your edits to Rough fish, you did a very nice job. I had just reorganized it, but copy editing (and speling;) are not my strongest points. I appreciate the cleanup work you did. Next I was wanting to put in something about how not all rough fish are from stocking, etc., as well as provide perspective from a few other countries, mainly english speaking. Any help or input would be greatly appreciated. Pharmboy (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I know very little about rough fish but will be glad to copyedit any further additions to the article. I'll keep it on my watchlist. Rivertorch (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note on my talk page

I've responded there; and I'll keep the conversation there unless you prefer I copy my responses here as well. — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've joined your segue about plurals and the result is on my talk page. If not especially enlightening, it is at least somewhat entertaining. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C.Bechstein Pianofortefabrik

This is an offical Company Web Page and so the link of the Int. Pianocompetition is´ right be there, or? --Keystrike (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Official of not, the page relates only indirectly to the subject of the article (see item 14 under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided), and it reads like an advertisement. In fact, parts of the article itself read like an advertisement; dealing with that on this and other piano pages has been on my to-do list for some time. If you think the link is important, my suggestion would be to mention the competition in the body of the article and link from there. In the meantime, I'm inclined to remove it per WP:EL. Rivertorch (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bechstein pianos: history, competition and vintage collectibles vs modern design

Hi,

Welcome to discussion about pianos.

Your contribution to this and other articles is highly appreciated.

Let's put our minds together and keep making Wikipedia better.

Regards,

Steve shelok honov 06:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmylou Harris grammys

I changed back to the original dates, which I confirmed at the official Grammy site. I had changed them to match the dates in the WP article. Maybe there is some confusion because the awards for a given year are presented in the following year. Gr8white (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, can you clarify the statement "It also won Harris yet another of her record 12 Grammy awards"? It doesn't make much sense without some qualification but I can't figure out just what the "record" is (female country singer maybe?) Gr8white (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. If she does hold such a record, it's deserving of a more prominent mention upstream in the article. I have removed the word "record" (and also the word "yet", which seemed a bit too much like implicit praise). Rivertorch (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harp category

Hi, there's a new Category:Harps in which all harp-related articles fit, which appears in the very top of the Category:String instruments category. By keeping harp-related articles just in the targeted subcategory "Harps" (which is visible from the category "String instruments," it makes it much easier to navigate the category "String instruments," with as many instruments as possible moved to their proper subcategories. Hope this explains the process. Badagnani (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry for the first revert, then. I watch several musical instrument articles but rarely look at category pages, so I'll keep an eye out for similar changes and leave them alone. Rivertorch (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R

I saw that and wondered how long it would be before the entry was purged or I received a new message :-). I did intend to come back to enter a reference. I found one available online so it doesn't have to be looked up at the library (or wherever physical location of a book). Evolauxia (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, there's so much vandalism to that article that we need to be absolutely strict about sources. Thanks for fixing it. Rivertorch (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

The living person is the murder suspect, McIrney. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Homosexuality#is very wrong

I enjoyed your response there. I'm commenting here because I don't want to encourage a continuation of the conversation there, but I had to comment! :) Aleta ^Sing 20:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, Aleta. You almost compensated for its being Monday. Rivertorch (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Well, then they were worthwhile words! Aleta ^Sing 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmylou Harris discography

Oh, no problem, it's what I do. Emmylou Harris is a great artist and she deserves a great singles chart to match the rest of the detailed disocgraphy. If know of any other singles by her, feel free to add them. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Otherwise known as daffodils

Hi Torch,

I have removed the alternate name myself. I am currently reading "The Secret Garden" and assumed that if the name was used in such a long-standing book then any spelling errors would have been corrected by now. I will attempt to have more backing to my edits in the future. Thank you for the kind manner in which you expressed your message! I've been having some minor skirmishes with other users lately, so it's encouraging to receive a polite correction.

Neelix (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I like your choice of television shows. The Munsters, Green Acres, and Star Trek are some of my absolute favorites.

Skirmishes are a fact of life here, it seems. I do try to be polite (well, usually) but sometimes it backfires. I'm glad you feel encouraged, and I appreciate your saying so. Rivertorch (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Christie

Thank you very much for the thank you! I've got it on my list of "things to do" to do a major rewrite of that page and stop it being mainly all lists but one thing that's been bugging me for some time was the unpublished works stuff, none of which (aside from those that remain) I'd ever heard of! I think I put a comment on months ago proposing to delete the items unless anyone could produce references but I never got round to it, hence the reason I plunged in yesterday!
Cheers. John--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boy2Boy

Thanks for the message, I have commented on the Noticeboard. I am particularly concerned by the behaviour of PMDrive and Noroton, who appear to have been collaborating on this and by this comment [1] to be trying to conceal their collaboration. DuncanHill (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I missed that. I really don't want to pursue this, at least not unless Boy2boy contests the block. Why would he or she bother, though, after getting indefinitely blocked over a mere two edits, and getting gay-bashed in the bargain with aspersions cast on a username with no objectionable connotations that I can discern? This is a textbook example of biting the newcomer. I'll leave a comment at the Noticeboard but am not expecting much. Rivertorch (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.O. Green School shooting

If you really want to restore it I'm not going to throw a fit or anything even though I'd prefer if you didn't, in my opinion it just seem a lot easier to discuss the article in its current state, esp with all the hot tempered arguments that went on prior to the new evidence. It feels like opening up old wounds. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It feels a bit like that to me, too, but I think that archiving it is just sweeping it under the carpet. Fact is, I insisted way back when on specifics to support the NPOV allegations; none were forthcoming, only lots of whining about agendas and so on. Months later, someone offers specifics and their post immediately disappears, along with my initial reply (and along with more stated assumptions about me—this from an editor who had insisted he was done with it and just wanted to be left alone). I don't like wounds, old or new, but I'd rather that everything still under active discussion were kept in plain sight (unless it's totally inappropriate for a talk page, such as an essay that has nothing to do with improving the article). There is much dead wood in there, so if you want to take a stab at refactoring, please do. In the meantime, I'm pressed for time and am just going to revert it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J'accuse!

Commas inside the quotation marks? I never. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the fateful transposition occur? I do it everywhere but here, so it's inevitable I'll slip up here from time to time. (More worrying is that I'll start using WP style elsewhere.) Rivertorch (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your userpage. Which I enjoyed quite a lot. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying so. It desperately needs updating, I'm afraid. Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jackson / Emmylou Harris collaboration

Hi, Rivertorch.

I don't possess enough information to have a really valid opinion, but I tentatively support inclusion of I've Always Needed You in the collaborations section of the Emmylou Harris discography article. I've never listened to the recording; I base my inexpert support primarily upon AMG's listing of I've Always Needed You in Emmylou's discography as a Jackson/Harris collaboration.

Also, although it certainly isn't pertinent to the matter, I can't help but reflect on the fact that three Spring Training cuts are included on Songbird.

Nevertheless, I would be somewhat dismayed to see I've Always Needed You included in the collaborations section of Template:Emmylou Harris. Whatever that observation signifies, it's beyond the scope of this communication.

Thank you. Dan GrouchyDan (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gliding bird

What I meant to say is that the aside seemed out of place in the section about her humble beginnings. I'm not sure if or how these contract disputes should be incorporated later. Ghosts&empties (talk)

Okay, thanks. I'll see about incorporating it later in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darwinski

Has now been blocked permanently. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/165.188.95.211 appears to be the same individual. Rivertorch (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Homosexuality (lead section)

After looking up some online dictionary ([[2]], etc) entries, I see that the academic definition does back up "homosexuality" also meaning "sexual behavior." This still doesn't make sense to me (and I haven't heard it used that way outside of mainly conservative/fundamentalist contexts), but I will defer to the academics. As a lay person when it comes to the science or study of words, homosexuality/heterosexuality refers to conditions (attraction to same-sex/opposite-sex), and homosexual/heterosexual refers to things/persons/actions/etc that are related to attraction or activity with the same (or opposite) sex. I defer to the academic definition though (this is an encyclopedia after all), and won't contest it further. thanks for the heads up, btw. Outsider80 (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Please consider staying—or coming back later—and helping fix these two articles. If I can ever find the time, I'd like to try to pare them down to a manageable size (perhaps with some of their current sections spun off into new articles) and then merge them again. But it's a daunting project. Aside from the usual vandals and homophobes of varying subtlety, there are wide differences of legitimate opinion about what should be included and why, and how it should be worded. Rivertorch (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx for the invitation...it is a heated article (that is why I thought the lede was worded that way, but come to find out that is actually the academic definition).. hopefully it can get better organized like you said. Outsider80 (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

supertweeter

I know that the supertweeter reference was not very good, but I looked everywhere and that was the only thing I could find.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tweeter" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BebyB (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll poke around in the next few days and see if I can find anything. For reasons I cannot fathom, there is a dearth of reliable info on certain audio topics online. NB: talk pages nearly always run chronologically from top to bottom, so it's best to start new sections at the bottom. Also, please sign all your talk page posts (four consecutive tildes [tilde = ~] does this automatically and adds time and date. Rivertorch (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Older talk archive | Newer talk archive | Current talk page