User talk:Rivertorch/Archive5

RIVERTORCH TALK ARCHIVE EARLY 2010

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

Crocus olivieri istanbulensis

Dear Rivertorch,

This taxon is one on the three subspecies of Crocus olivieri. Its correct name is Crocus olivieri Gray subsp. istanbulensis B. Mathew. I have corrected it.

I hope the anonymous user will not change it again.

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 12:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Réginald. If you hadn't arrived on the scene, I was going to ping you. I removed the Turkish image and link, since I didn't think they were germane, but I left it to you to fix the taxonomic details. Does Mathew's classification, as it appears in the article, contain all the known species of crocus? Rivertorch (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi River,

The page contains all the recorded species, but not the infraspecific taxa (i.e., the numerous subspecies). Originally Crocus olivieri subsp. istanbulensis was for this reason not included. For consistency reason including it required to mention also -as I did- the two other subspecies olivieri and balansae.

The issue is: if we want to be fully consistent we have to mention also all recorded subspecies (with their distribution as for that of C. olivieri?), among others the numerous subspecies of the variable C. biflorus. A niggling work! I am afraid that the page will become too scholastic.

Your advice about this issue?

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 08:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You can find a quite complete list of species and their subspecies on the NCBI taxonomy browser. Type "Crocus" in the "search for" bar. --Réginald (To reply) 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link—that's a great resource. I don't think we should worry about its being too scholastic. My main concern would be with consistency: I'm not sure if there are comparable articles that also list all subspecies. The information about subspecies certainly should be available on Wikipedia, but should it go in the main article or in the more specific articles about each species (of which there are now only a few). I don't know. Rivertorch (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency reasons I have added the other subspecies reported in the NCBI taxonomy and cited the source. I agree that additional paragraphs or articles should be written for the most representative species, in which a detailed description of their subspecies would then be done (as e.g. I have done in fr:Crocus). --Réginald (To reply) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'd be happy to help with creating new articles and refining translations, if you want to go that route. Just remember I don't know what I'm talking about ;-) Rivertorch (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear River,

I have removed again the the logo of the Sultanbeyli District Municipality, that User:Terzinator had added again to Crocus, explaining the reason for doing it (see User talk:Terzinator). Hopefully, he/she will not add it again!

Best regards, --Réginald (To reply) 15:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Réginald. I don't do edit wars, so I'm glad there's someone else diligently watching the page. I see that the image appears to lack any copyright info or fair-use claims. I try to avoid any involvement with enforcement of image policies, but if it gets added again I will see if it can be deleted on those grounds. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good comment

I like this comment at WP:BLPRFC! — Spike Toronto 06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that was quick. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The timing was purely coincidental. As for me, I’m waiting before reviewing and !voting. The thing seems to be growing exponentially though. Plus, it’s spread across so many “venues.” (See thread here for list.) — Spike Toronto 08:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My unexplained deletion

Hi Rivertorch, perhaps you were correct that this comment was on topic: [1]; I deleted it because at a glance it appeared to be one of a series of comments that were strongly subjective, if not trolling: [2], [3], [4]. Likewise, If this was first person, we would also have to make the articles mammal, Earthling, anglophone, and nerd in the first person, as those describe all readers at first appears to be on point, but ends gratuitously. Nonetheless, I should have left a comment when deleting the remark. Thanks, 99.156.69.78 (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain your edit. I think the gratuitous ending was supposed to be humorous. (There's lots of supposed humor at Talk:Human. I'm ashamed to admit that even I may have inflicted supposed humor on the page once or twice.) I can see how it might have seemed snarky, though, especially in the context of other talk-page posts you found unhelpful. In looking at the diffs you provided, however, I would point out that only the Wookiepedia one appears worthy of being zapped. (Humor in article space = vandalism.) The Catcher in the Rye edit does discuss the article, albeit only vaguely, and the other edit at Talk:Human is, while frivolous in its style, absolutely relevant to the discussion at hand. On talk pages, it's probably safer to give questionable posts the benefit of the doubt. Now, if you'll forgive a bit of proselytizing on my own talk page, please consider registering an account. There are no disadvantages I know of, but there are advantages both for other editors (we'll know we're talking to the same editor every time) and for you (no chance of getting warned or blocked because some idiot sharing your IP decides to be antisocial). Rivertorch (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott MacDonald actions on Talk:Johnny Weir

Hi! Given your comments on the AN/I thread, would you agree on filing a user conduct RfC? --Cyclopia ^talk 12:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it would help the project to do that. The only likely effect would be to make more drama by providing a new venue for various miscreants to launch new attacks on editors who dare to offer a neutral opinion on LGBT-related topics. According to said miscreants, one is apparently supposed to go "ooh, yuck" or otherwise demonstrate one's complete disdain for the idea that the very mention of homosexual orientation in a talk thread could possibly constitute anything other than a slur that would cause imminent harm to some famous person. At some point yesterday, I got the feeling I'd been transported into some bizarre parallel universe where Wikipedia was populated by heterosexist thugs who operate with impunity. It got weirder and uglier by the moment, and the culmination of the ANI thread, which saw editors I have worked with and respected piling praise on the sysop in question, was pretty much the last straw for me.

So I'd just prefer to drop it, I think. My prediction is that S.M. and his toolless sidekick will overreach one of these days and find themselves up the creek. In the meantime, I'll just try to avoid them. If you or someone else were to file an RfC, I wouldn't be silent or anything but neither would I be inclined to stay engaged with such a discussion over the long haul. As I said at ANI, that kind of thing is not why I'm here.

Fact is, S.M. did get a fair amount of criticism at ANI yesterday. If he prefers to be obdurate and insist the rules don't apply to him, that's his prerogative. I'd say let it go. Rivertorch (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with you. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now (magazine)

Hi Rivertorch! I seem to recall your being geographically situated such that you might have had occasion to come across the above-captioned newspaper. If so, I was wondering what you think of Now (magazine) vis-à-vis WP:RS? There is a query over at WP:RSN regarding this topic that seems to come down to: Is it Toronto’s equivalent to The National Enquirer, or is it Toronto’s equivalent to The Village Voice? I honestly don’t read it anymore, now that I am such an old man, so I was wondering if you might hazard an opinion in the WP:RSN discussion? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 04:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with Now. Very busy today but may wander over to RSN later and see what's up. Rivertorch (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the question has been resolved now. There are alt weeklies and alt weeklies, but I have yet to see one that's comparable to the Enquirer; they're pretty vital news outlets, especially in cities where the daily is either fully in bed with the local power structure or no longer does investigative reporting because of staff cuts. Rivertorch (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: Now is truly a vital news outlet in Toronto. I haven’t read Now in years — I used to read its theatre listings for PWYC showings and, when I was bodybuilding, I used to read it at the gym where someone would always leave a copy lying around — but I would never have thought of it as being comparable to The National Enquirer! I truly always thought of it as akin to The Village Voice, only for a smaller, less world-class burg. There is a daily freebie called Metro News that lacks Now’s local bona fides, and perhaps encroaches more on the market share of the big dailies than does Now. However, some years ago, and in direct competition, the Toronto Star, considering either that Now was a serious enough threat to its market share, or that Now had a largely untapped corner of the market all to itself, launched its own weekly, Eye Weekly. Politically, I would say that Now is more to the left than Eye, but not too terribly much given that Eye’s parent, the Star, is a left-of-centre, Liberal Party-supporting broadsheet. However, most of us on the Left consider Now to be the more serious publication politically. Catch ya later! — Spike Toronto 19:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I see you nuked a PA on my talk page. Thanks for that — I'm almost never here any more. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I? Wow, I see I did. Two months and I had completely forgotten. I think WP is decaying my memory. Glad to have helped! Rivertorch (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is requested

Hi Rivertorch!

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind voting on this. If you don't want to be involved, I completely understand, also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_12#Category:LGBT_rights_opposition

Thanks, Doug--DCX (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Another one, huh? Fact is, this is just one in a long line of attempts to eliminate or water down topics involving anti-gay prejudice. I have no idea what's behind all of them, but they're getting tiresome. Clearly, screaming "homophobia", as some editors have done, isn't a productive response, but neither is the head-in-sand approach of others who apparently require Fred Phelps-style brazenness before admitting anything's wrong. I honestly don't know how to respond, at this point. I think it's something that the community will eventually have to confront.

As for my vote, you're the category's creator and I have a history for opposing the renaming or deletion of similar categories. While I have no doubt of your good intentions and I certainly always try to judge any proposal on its own merits, you should be aware that notifying me in this way might create a negative impression. Don't sweat it—no one can possibly learn all of the conventions around here overnight—but be advised I doubt I'll comment in this case. Rivertorch (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question moved to its own section

Do you work for the Corn Refiners lobby? Do you do "outsourced" work for them? Your bias is pretty wicked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.239.22 (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked, huh? Great, I'll add that to my small but growing collection of silly adjectives lobbed my way. My sympathies on your hallucinations, though. I'm about as much a corn refiners' lobbyist as Nelson Mandela is a white supremacist. Rivertorch (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Account creator flag

Hi Rivertorch,

I wanted to let you know that I have removed your "Account Creator flag because it appears that you aren't using it. Per the policy on WP:PERM the flag is removed if you are not active in the account Creation process or need it for something else. I know that you didn't originally ask for this right so you may not really mind it being gone but please let me know if you need it (either to begin being active in ACC or because you need it to edit edit-notices). James (T C) 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I didn't ask for it and thus far haven't found any use for it. Thanks for the heads-up. Rivertorch (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

Hi. Concerning this edit of yours I would like to tell you that {{Article issues}} shouldn't be added without any parameters into articles. Editors must be able to see immediately what are the issues and try to fix them without having to look in to article's history. Moreover, this makes it easier to remove the ones that are fixed. AWB removes empty Article issues tags. Information about empty Article issues tags can also be found in Template talk:Multiple issues. Thanks, 08:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

When I tag an article, I try to be as specific as possible. Being of the human persuasion, I don't achieve perfect tagging every time. Sorry! (Btw, Magioladitis, you must be human too. Consider: messages shouldn't be added without signatures into talk pages. Editors must be able to see immediately who left them messages and try to respond to them without having to look in the article's history.) ;-) Rivertorch (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Older talk archive | Newer talk archive | Current talk page