Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrX (talk | contribs) at 19:48, 23 November 2012 (→A cup of tea for you!: tea for three?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:PC2012/RfC_1#Vote on closure

FWIW, I think the discussions in this section may address some of the things you mentioned on my talk page. Or not :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It addresses one of the things, anyway. I've been watching that page closely, but thanks for the link. Sometimes I feel as if I'm playing chess in the dark. Rivertorch (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. It doesn't feel like a game of strategy to me, though it does sometimes feel like Greco-Roman wrestling :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not a game, but trying to get from point a (more like point m) to point z without fatal misstep does require a careful strategy. I'm finding it difficult. Each question along the way seems to require one to think at least three steps ahead; each decision has multiple implications for the following question and the one after that, and the one after that. And for various reasons, a couple of them obvious and others unknown to me and baffling, some of us seem to be speaking oh so carefully, with hints and implications, instead of just saying plainly what we think and why. The effect of it all is vey cloak and dagger, even if no one really intends it that way.

One of the best suggestions you made was early on, when you proposed that like-minded editors (e.g., those historically opposed to PC) get together and try to hammer out something they'd find acceptable, then bring that to the table. I think that might have made a difference, but I couldn't figure out how to engineer it without opening myself up to accusations of canvassing. For similar reasons, I've been reluctant to begin conversations with editors away from the PC2012 pages even when I think a one-on-one discussion might be beneficial to finding common ground and moving the process along. And when I do bother to try that approach, I'm met either with an oblique response or no response at all. Chess analogies aside, the whole endeavor seems very much like feeling one's way through unfamiliar territory on a moonless night with nothing but a glow stick and an intermittent flashlight. If I make the wrong move, will I foil someone's carefully laid (and entirely benevolent) plan? lose my own credibility? screw everything up and piss everyone off? Maybe I would do better just to abandon the whole thing and go find a quiet corner and play wikignome. Problem is, I know damn well that PC is going to eventually find me wherever I go, and if it's anything like the provisional policy I'm not going to like it when it does. Rivertorch (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:PC2012/RfC 1 can look scary, because the statements are short and don't have a lot of depth, which is typical for RfCs. But WT:PC2012 by itself wasn't getting the job done, we weren't getting the spectrum of opinions we needed to be able to put together RfCs that will attempt to address all the concerns the voters are likely to have. The only "strategy" I see here is basic social skills:

1. Invite people in. If they don't come, try something else. (The RfC is the something else, here.)
2. Take people seriously, but at least on Misplaced Pages, don't assume that they're being completely honest and that they've told you the whole story, because Misplaced Pages tends to suppress long and honest discussion of serious issues, and people learn to keep their thoughts to themselves. You have to work a little to reverse their expectations ... then they're generally helpful and forthcoming.
3. Keep asking questions, and keep suggesting alternatives that might deal with everyone's concerns at the same time. Only resort to "compromises" or "votes" on those points where we've tried hard and failed to get a super-consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure that's good advice. Rivertorch (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: "committing": great, glad to have you on board. I know this is frustrating ... small consolation, I guess, but everyone seems to be frustrated about one thing or another, certainly including me. Let's all be frustrated together :) - Dank (push to talk) 10:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I still think we're asking the questions in the wrong order": Well, I think you learn a lot more asking people about what they think the problems are than what they think the solutions are, is that connected to what you'd like? The problem is, we already had a page where people could come talk about the problems ... and we needed more people. People like votes more ... and then, hopefully, some will hang around to discuss the problems. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm on my way out the door, so forgive lack of nuance: I don't disagree per se, but I can't help thinking that even more fundamental than identifying the problems should be identifying the purpose. If we can do that, I do believe that some of the other things will fall into place a lot more easily. Rivertorch (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To expand a bit, I mean that there's a new tool that's about to be implemented (I'm tempted to say "inflicted" but will restrain myself), and what is it for? That's really the basic question, as far as I can tell, and it's really two related questions: (1) what should it be used for? and (2) what may it be used for? The first is almost purely a philosophical question and quite abstract, since it involves what we want; the second is a bit more pragmatic in that it involves determining policy-based limits for how much deviation we'll allow from what we want. I think that if we can reach even the most tenuous consensus on this sort of thing, then answers to the other important questions (e.g., the one about PC/2) may become clearer—and, more immediately, we may gain insight into how to pose those other questions in a way that leads to further consensus. On the other hand, if we reserve the most basic questions for later, I don't think we'll get to them in time because we'll remain mired in procedural wrangling over everything but the kitchen sink. Rivertorch (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is it vandalism when I explain the obvious - that an article about a famous man should include his picture - but you find it perfectly fine to revert with no explanation?

Why do you engage in censorship while referrimg to my simple, logical and modest edit as vandalism? The issue has already been determined in theory- depictions of Muhammad are not to be censored because they are pictures of Muhammad. Yet what I found in the space which would normally show an image of the person written about is a stylized depiction of the word for Muhammad itself, in Arabic. Refer me to a page about any famous Englishman or American or Australian which, in place of that persons image, there appears that person's name in English - but written in flourished italics. That would be ludicrous and it is equally ludicrous for Muhammad's name to appear in that fashion. Kindly spare me the duty of reverting your reversion - or state your reasoning for reverting my edit and calling it vandalism. Your failure to provide any explanation does not seem in good faith to me. QuintBy (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Good morning to you too. Shall we employ a little fact-checking?

1. I didn't remove your preferred image from the infobox; someone else did.
2. That someone else made it so there was no image in the infobox.
3. Both of you were in the wrong because you ignored the great big colorful message, linking to two explanatory pages, staring you in the face when you edited the page, thereby violating consensus.
4. I restored the image for which consensus was reached after a community-wide discussion that lasted for two months.
5. In my edit summary, I explained exactly what I was doing and why I was doing it.
6. At no time did I refer to your edit as vandalism.

I realize you're new around here (in terms of edit count, anyway), and rest assured I won't hold your jumping to conclusions against you. A word of advice, though: even when another editor actually does any of the things you falsely alleged I did, it's generally advisable for you to take a less combative approach. Almost all of us are here with a common goal: to help build or maintain an encyclopedia. There are bound to be misunderstandings, as well as serious disagreements, and in many cases they can be resolved by asking, rather than accusing. Rivertorch (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Good morning yourself. I realize that by the standard you apply to me, you are old around here. Thus I find it disappointing that tutelage you have offered me as a 'new' editor is not sufficiently explanatory of your own editing/reversion of Muhammad. What the big colorful message staring me in face told me was that the quasi-image of Muhammad that was in place when I arrived had not been discussed and thus warranted reversion. It was your reversion of my edit which was inconsistent with the message which stared you in the face as well. What your reversion did was return to view the very image on the page which had warranted removal in the first place, for violation of the 'colorful' rule requiring discussion of all images used. More to the point, in returning that image to view you did not yourself undertake to provide the requisite discussion that was missing when I arrived and is still missing as I write this. The fact of the matter is that when you arrived, my edit had been reverted/edited already. Following the letter of the colorful rule, neither the image of Muhammad represented in Arabic nor my own edit to include a visual depiction of Muhammad's visage were discussed in advance of being placed. So why would you follow the discussion rule as it pertained to the image I added, but not follow that same rule with regard to the image which you reverted back to, which also was not vetted through discussion on the colorful page? I am confused by your interpretation of what was staring us both in the face, and also puzzled that when you returned the image which I edited out because there was zero discussion regarding it, that you did not rectify that omission by inserting your own discussion in support of inclusion of the stylistic depiction of Muhammad. Belated is better than omitted. Please discuss (on the in-your-face page) why you think that an image which deliberately avoids depicting Muhammad's visage is consistent with the consensus that a depiction of Muhammad's visage is not to be censored. QuintBy (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

QuintBy, whether either of us is new or old is really unimportant. I do make allowances for newbies that I generally wouldn't make for veteran Wikipedians; that's all I meant. You falsely accused me of labeling your edit as vandalism when I did no such thing. Worse, you implied that I was acting in bad faith. Allegations of that sort are never appreciated, but if they're made out of ignorance one must excuse them. As I did in your case.

Regarding the substantive question of the image, it was all discussed ad nauseam during the RfC (linked above and now linked again for your convenience). If you want to know my opinion, go read the RfC and see how I !voted on the various questions. But my opinion, like your opinion, is really very much beside the point. The point is that consensus was reached, it may eventually change but not anytime soon, and everyone needs to accept it. Consensus is arguably the basis of everything we do on Misplaced Pages. My restoration of the consensus version of the article was grounded in policy. Such edits, made to enforce consensus, do not require any accompanying discussion; the discussion has already been had. Rivertorch (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoops on the Fallopion tube to the uterus.

I just realized that I made that careless edit. I'm glad you caught it. Thank you. Oh sheesh. Red faced here. LOL That was dumb on my part and I will be much more careful in the future. Marmenta (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. I had already forgotten. Rivertorch (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing archived edit request

You did the right thing. It was my fault when I archived the page without checking for unanswered edit requests and keeping them on the talk page. —Cupco 18:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I started to move it back to the talk page but figured that was pointless since protection apparently had expired. I know there's a lot of activity on that talk page, but I strongly suspect that 24 hours between MiszaBot visits is too short an interval. I'm not watching the article and won't make the change, but I'd suggest 72 hours at a minimum, increased to weekly (or longer) as soon things settle down. In the meantime, manual archiving can also take place if things get out of hand. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Lobster

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lobster , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. PeterWesco (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

If you can't be bothered to even read an edit request, it would be better if you didn't just casually flip it off. It took me some time and effort to find the correct parameter, and I expected it to be fixed. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I read it twice but apparently missed something. Let me see if I can find it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Added: I've responded at Talk:Elizabeth Warren and have left your second edit request open. It would help if you'd be very specific about what you want changed. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Last time, as you seem determined to test AGF to the limit. The Template is CONGLINKS. The parameter is WASHPO. The values was, and is, Elizabeth_Warren. it needed to be CHANGED to gIQAZHDx9O . The value is what needed to be changed, in the Elizabeth Warren article, NOT adding an additional link. A separate link was used as a TEMPORARY change until the Template was fixed because ALL the urls changed, thanks to the ever-incompetent Washington Post. The Template CONGLINKS was fixed, and I have already corrected quite a few instances of the Template. Today, someone changed the template CONGLINKS so that NONE of those are displayed. That needs to be reverted. This isn't rocket science, and everything was discussed in the Talk pages. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing to imply I wasn't assuming good faith in you or anyone else. But you know what? Registering for an account isn't rocket science either, and since you're conversant with Wikispeak acronyms but unable to follow the directions in the edit request box or communicate with someone trying to help you without resorting to SHOUTING and baseless criticism, I suggest you register, make a few edits, and earn the privilege of fixing it yourself. In case you prefer to remain unregistered and locked out of semi-protected articles, I have left your edit request open. Someone else, likely much brighter than I, will doubtless find it in due course and make the change. I'm generally one of the more patient editors around here, but I'm afraid I'm not in the mood to be infinitely patient with you today. Rivertorch (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rivertorch

My name is Veysel Peru, you have commented to a writing of mine in the Talk_Quran section. I kindly want you to read my personal site http://www.VeyselicNumbers.com and return your comments on it.

Thank you very much.

Veyselperu (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can offer no meaningful opinion on the content of your site, but I wish you all the best. (Please note that Misplaced Pages does not accept original research to support its content.) Rivertorch (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever your contribution is, thank you very much.

Veysel Peru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veyselperu (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

bioreactors == sewage treatment

(sorry if this is in the wrong place, I haven't used it before)

Although, I may have made a few grammatical errors in editing 'sewage treatment', shouldn't the subject matter of the section be confined to sewage treatment... or better wastewater treatment (since 'sewage' is somewhat deprecated in the field). I was trying to explain generalities of wwt as succinctly as possible. Perhaps I should have used a laptop instead of an ipad...

Tissue culture is not done at treatment plants. Although there are fixed film processes, the true wwt reactors are either anaerobic digesters or pure oxygen reactors: since they are closed to the atmosphere(is that not the implication of a bioreactor). I don't know whether aerators, trickling filters, or rotating biological contactors are truly bioreactors, since they are open to the atmosphere, but the are not tissue culture.

I operate pure oxygen reactors with a flow through of about 350MGD (think how many plants in the USA have that flow), the atmosphere is excluded to decrease nitrogen input. Although I have heard of mobile fixed film wwt plant in NZ that uses some kind of media called Kaldanes, generally wwt is activated sludge w/o media in reactors or aerators--probably to avoid problems with pump impellers and media/zooglia separation.

Should I have added references? Maybe, but in wwt, what I wrote is general knowledge just as the unreferenced tissue culture stuff is probably general knowledge. But, can we separate, into separate sections: WWT from academic Tissue Culture, Industrial Bioreactors, and especially Proprietary Bioreaction Processes?

Perhaps you could re-edit what I wrote to something more popularly intelligible--as you have seen my writing isn't the best. The Ken Kerri books from CSU Sacramento are the standard set of California texts for operator certification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.21.108 (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe you intended this message for someone else. We don't appear to have edited any of the same articles, unless you were editing under a different IP, and I haven't ever edited any article on wastewater treatment that I can recall. The only edit from your current IP to an article—this one—looks fine to me, although it's technical enough in nature that I can't be sure. Rivertorch (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Modification to May PC be applied to pages to protect against violations of the policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)?

Talkback

GedUK  12:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC live

I hope you don't mind I took the talk-page RfC live with most of your proposed questions, along with a general area for people to raise any concerns they have with the proposed policy text that now lives on WP:PC. It's at WT:PC. Feel free to notify anyone else that you think might not be watching the page already. It's on CENT as well. Gigs (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Gigs, I do mind. You consistently and adamantly opposed having another RfC, and now, while I'm actively working on revising questions per various discussions (including the one I had with you a week ago), you unilaterally, prematurely, and without so much as a word on the page where that has been discussed decide to concoct an RfC, place it on the wrong page, and advertise it centrally? At every step along the way, there has been consensus for these RfCs. This is counterproductive, and I sincerely hope you will self-revert. Rivertorch (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Added: It's still early enough to cancel it; only one editor has commented. If you don't want to cancel, I guess we're going to have two concurrent RfCs with partially overlapping questions starting in about six days. Rivertorch (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Crap, I did not expect this reaction. From our last exchange, it seemed that your main opposition was to having the discussion in more than one location, not to having the RfC in an informal format on the talk page. It also seemed like discussion and revision had come to a standstill.

The new RfC has already drawn feedback, I'd be very reluctant to withdraw it now. I can only apologize profusely. I really did not mean to "fait accompli" this. It had seemed to me that discussion had died down and I wanted to "kick the horse" a little and get things moving again. We are on a deadline here, and I think we both agree that the old provisional policy is no where close to consensus, and is not a valid option for December 1. I did not see any activity in revision of the questions, if I missed it, I'm sorry for that as well.

Can you integrate any further questions you want considered into the currently running RfC that's on the talk page? I'd really like to salvage it if possible. Can we talk about it and work this out without frustrating the community further by withdrawing this discussion or having two concurrent ones? Again, I'm very sorry. I did not expect you to object to what I did this strongly, or I would not have done it. Gigs (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe in substantively modifying an RfC that's already underway, so if you feel it's too far along to withdraw, it will just have to run. Personally, I'd remove the RfC tag and the central notice, mark it as premature and collapse it, but I leave that up to your judgment. It's not the end of the world—just imho a distraction and a probable annoyance to people who I think we've both noted are rather tired of the whole subject of pending changes. I'm sure you had the best intentions, but I can't imagine making a unilateral decision to start an RfC on this topic; since the "Big RfC" closed a few months ago, everything that's happened has been collaborative—until now. Oh well. Don't sweat it. Based on what's on the draft page and associated talk page (which btw are linked in several places and are where folks are going to expect to find the next RfC), I've been working on a draft for the past two weeks that I had hoped to post later this week with an eye to opening RfC 3 on Saturday or Sunday (in time for a notice in the next Signpost). I'm going to still shoot for that—I think the reviewer questions at the very least cannot be delayed—and will do my best to complement "your" RfC and not conflict with it. At the moment, I'm a little preoccupied with a pending something else that could leave me Internet-less until late in the week, so things are a little uncertain for me right now. Rivertorch (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the hurricane as well. Gigs (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've collapsed the RfC temporarily, and commented out the WP:CENT advertising. Feel free to add more questions to it and reopen it when you are ready. Gigs (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, good, thanks. Anything I do will be post-storm. I already lost power once, just as I was about to reply here, and it's almost inconceivable it will stay on. I freely confess I enjoy storms on a certain level, but I'm just technologically primitive enough to be quite undone by them. My outage is come upon me! cried the Wikipedian of Shalott.

Thanks for being responsive to my concerns. Stay safe. Rivertorch (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My power is still out, coming up on 24 hours now. I'm somewhat of a prepper though, so I'm well prepared. Power is on here at work. Gigs (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Lucky you. I'm well prepped for survival, not so much for communications sans power (and I've never felt a burning need to remedy that). Rivertorch (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes me think of editing Misplaced Pages over FSK ham radio. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. I have no interest in editing Misplaced Pages from phone or tablet, nor do I think anything I'm doing here is important enough to burn fossil fuels and money to go where there's power and Internet. If that makes me a primitive technophobe and a fair weather Wikipedian, so be it. Rivertorch (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	for your appropriate and well-timed application of WP:IAR recently --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What a nice surprise to log in and find! You know, I think it may have been the first time I explicitly cited that policy for an action I took, and I was a little skeptical, so I'm very grateful for your vote of confidence. Thank you so much. Rivertorch (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A matter of identity

RiverTorch, I am Jay Leno. Please quit reversing my changes... James.Douglas.Muir (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're Jay Leno, you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing your own article, let alone violating the policy on original research. Please edit another article instead (preferably not David Letterman's), and don't waste my time. Rivertorch (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Incidentally, unless you really are Mr. Leno (which you should feel free to prove to the OTRS team), your user name is disruptive and needs to be changed. Rivertorch (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Rivertorch, let's be clear here. We're in a bit of a pickle with time and politics and speech not playing out freely, as they should be, at the moment, and getting people's visibility on this subject matter is of the utmost concern. So what you're saying is you feel justified in limiting my freedom of speech, and not only that, you feel justified in limiting my freedom of speech and disallow me talking about myself?

So how does this sound, Since you've remained anonymous to me, send me your name and full contact information to my email address, at James.Douglas.Muir@gmail.com, or you can contact me at (818) 840-3223, or better yet, contact me on my web site, which you can do any google search and ask if I support these changes. Or better yet, how about you stop by my studios, and we can chat personally about this. I'd love to discuss how Misplaced Pages editors suddenly adopted fascism and are now disallowing us from editing information about ourselves....

I'm interested in knowing who has the audacity to feel I need to prove myself to them.. That takes balls, that's for sure, but I give you the opportunity to justify your actions.. Who knows, I may make it a segment on my show, Misplaced Pages could clearly use a humility check if this is who we have representing our information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.Douglas.Muir (talk • contribs) 05:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now I know you're not Jay Leno. I'm not particularly a fan of his, but I'm confident that he's smart, sensible, and more than wise enough not to do what you're doing now. If your agenda here is to promote the write-in candidate you're hawking in your edits to the Leno page, I'm sorry to inform you that Misplaced Pages is the wrong venue; you're wasting your own time as well as mine. Please don't bother me again. Rivertorch (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Rivertorch, just to let you know, I have brought this User up in the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as they have made a legal threat on my Talk Page. I've included a link to your Talk Page so that the evaluating Administrator can better understand the situation. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

We both filed an ANI report. You beat me by mere seconds. Rivertorch (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad he's blocked. Some people just don't have lives. Anyway, I'm for Team Coco, lol. Cheers, Mate. King of Nothing (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

After reading many of things that I have read on your Talk Page, I just have to say that you have shown more patience than anyone I have ever encountered on or off of Misplaced Pages. It's almost like some people are just trying to get you to blow up and you just remain completely calm. (feel free to delete all this if you want, I just felt the need to mention this after your reaction to alot of the abuse people have thrown at you). King of Nothing (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Two barnstars in as many days—now that's a first for me. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You should run for Adminship

I've reviewed a lot of the successful and unsuccessful Requests for Adminship and I've reviewed a lot of your Contributions and I think you would be a lock to become an Administrator. If you would like someone to nominate you, I would be happy to do so (or if you'd like to nominate yourself I'd be happy to participate in the RfA). Let me know. As Always, With Thanks King of Nothing (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, but I suspect I'd be far from a "lock". If it were 2004 or 2005, when I first began editing (as an IP) and adminship was no big deal, I might go for it. Nowadays, I see no compelling reason to run the gauntlet that is RfA just to add a few tools, most of which I'd never use but a couple of which might further distract me from the reason I'm here but never seem to get around to anymore: building good articles. Rivertorch (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in participating in any way in reviewer promotions or demotions, that would be a great reason to run ... if you're interested in running, I'll nominate you. Btw, I certainly get your anxiety that admins will promote or demote "out of process" and that that could be a big problem ... I'm worried about that too, mainly because I think admins have gotten the message from the last couple of years that reviewership is supposed to be "no big deal", so they'll be thinking ... how hard can it be to figure out? I'm hoping that it does get hard to figure out, because that will be one sign that reviewers are working hard and they care about standards ... and if it does get complicated, then I think it's important to let admins know that. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting involved with promotions had never occurred to me. I guess I should give that some thought. In the short term, I'd really like to try and get back to doing some article work and see how that goes. Thank you, though. I'm flattered, and actually a little surprised, by your confidence in me. Rivertorch (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's really why I offered ... I know I can come across as distant on Misplaced Pages (outside of my home base, Milhist), and "distant" can come across as vaguely disapproving ... and I don't disapprove at all, I think you're doing a great job and I'm glad you're doing it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks . . . that means a lot. Fwiw, I really don't see you as distant—just preoccupied with article work, which is exactly as it should be. For the most part, it has been a genuine pleasure to work with you on PC prep, and any exceptions to that are down to my own frustrations with the process, not anything you did or didn't do. Rivertorch (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure too. I'm hoping it pays off. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Rivertorch (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Make it three

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I know some of my actions frustrated you, but I'm glad we could work something out in the end. Gigs (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW- GedUK added new comments to the not-yet-open RfC 3, despite the warnings at the top. Are we ready to just call it open? I think most of the recent participants in the RfC design process have weighed in at this point. Gigs (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, I detect a trend: wasn't it GedUK who commented in RfC 2 after it was closed? It probably doesn't matter as long as there are no substantive changes before it goes live, but lol! Let me do a last copyedit and see if anything important jumps out at me. If there's nothing, I'll say so at the talk page and I think you should do the honors. Thanks for pretty trinket #3—I am astonished and, truth be told, a little humbled. Rivertorch (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A cyoot kitteh!

Was going to give you the barnstar of diplomacy, but i see someone beat me to it...So have a kitty for the great work on Talk:Homophobia. Thanks and have an amazing day!

ツ Jenova20 09:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, great—now I have to buy kitty litter. (Thank you. We'll see if it has one iota of effect.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You could always return it to the pet shop. I left the receipt in the box and it should still be there (unless the kitteh ated it) =P

Have a nice evening! ツ Jenova20 15:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So it came from the pet shop, did it? I would never return it. Cyoot kittehs ≠ merchandise! Rivertorch (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I may have bought it from the back of a local place =P

Enjoy, they're delicious with prawn crackers and soy sauce apparently ツ Jenova20 23:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Redefining homophobia

Homophobia isn't a phobia, homophobes aren't scared... "they're just assholes" ツ Jenova20 20:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Like Rivertorch (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Like Insomesia (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48

Thanks for your input. I'm concerned at the rejection of processes that the community as a whole has endorsed over the years. That's not going to end well, and any suggestions for smoother and fairer running of the thing gratefully accepted. Here, at least. --Pete (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the community as a whole has never endorsed anything at all. If WP's body of contributors had been half as numerous and a quarter as diverse a few years ago as they are now, there likely enough wouldn't have been consensus for even the most basic policies that we take for granted. Look, I don't know you. I see your account dates from the time I was still fixing the occasional typo as an IP, but I don't recall running across your username before. HiLo48 and I apparently have a few watchlisted pages in common, so I've seen him around. While he may sometimes shoot from the hip, my impression is that the targets are usually legitimate enough. Shrug. I took a quick look at the RfC/U in question and found its focus on "profanity" more than a little silly. If the word "bullshit" offends you, you must live each day in a state of perpetual offense. Tell you what, though: I rather think the word's ubiquity, both on WP and in RL, can be attributed less to a reduction in civility than an increase in . . . well, in bullshit. Anyway, why don't the two of you trout each other, agree to disagree, and go find some other articles to edit? That might be the best way for this to end. Beyond that, I really don't have any suggestions. In my experience, dispute resolution is almost always messy and unpleasant, and it frequently doesn't end in a way that's beneficial to the individual editors or the project. Rivertorch (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Points taken. Sometimes I'm amazed that Misplaced Pages functions at all. Still, we manage to get some things done. As a night cabbie, foul language doesn't bother me, so I'm not personally offended. It's more the inappropriateness, like going into a library and yelling obscenities at the readers so that they will listen to what you have to say about the CIA and KFC and AFL. Besides, HiLo's vowed to stop swearing, and he's done that very well. He's a good editor in a little difficulty and needing a little help, that's all. Thanks for your interest and advice. Appreciated. --Pete (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)?

A cup of tea for you!

Your page message made me laugh and with the recent drama at ANI you could probably do with a cuppa. Enjoy this and hurry back! ツ Jenova20 20:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to be ungrateful or anything, but that looks more like coffee. How long did you leave the bag in? Rivertorch (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. Shhhh...I'm not really here. I'm in a very good mood right now, and nothing—not even a reminder of ANI—can bring me down.

Sorry, i keep forgetting to put the milk in. Enjoy your time off. Hey, you could even do that thing i saw once...what do they call it?...Ah, go outside! =D

That's always fun for a bit ツ Jenova20 09:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I did that yesterday, and it was great! Would you believe there's a whole world out there with trees and buildings and live music and crème brûlée and people who don't edit Misplaced Pages and other animals who don't edit Misplaced Pages . . . so many things you can read about by following WikiLinks are verifiable simply by walking out the door. On the one hand, I want to spread the word, tell the world, shout it from the rooftops, "Turn off the friggin computer and go outside!", but what if all the best editors heed the call and only the vandals and spammers and global-warming deniers are left to run the show? Btw, I'm very distractible. Did you know it takes seven colons to indent a reply next to a bottle of milk? Not three, four, five or six, but seven. I wonder, do the developers know? Rivertorch (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, i have corrected that. Nice to see the ANI hasn't affected your (as always) calm demeanor. I could be cruel and point out someone spelt "distractible" instead of "distractable" but i won't =P

See you around ツ Jenova20 17:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You could be cruel and point that out, yes, but first you should check whose spelling is correct. Speaking of cruel, on this side of the Pond, "spelt" is a grain much more often than it's a past tense. Rivertorch (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you've taken it too far now! See you at RFC Rivertorch!

...You're right though, Merriam says both are correct. So i learned something at least. Did you know you can use bumfuzzle as a substitute for surprised or shocked?

Thanks and have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova20 10:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Bumfuzzle"? Good thing Misplaced Pages is Not Censored. Sounds obscene to me. Rivertorch (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It's in the dictionary though and so i must use it =]

I hope you've seen this also. Things are getting mental at ANI. Thanks and have a nice weekend! ツ Jenova20 17:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice: keep your distance. Nothing good will come of any further comments there just now—not even if they're refutations of the most mindless absurdities. It's a failure of Misplaced Pages when mob rule runs the day at any noticeboard, and it happens at ANI all too frequently. That the subject has been allowed to redefine the complaint against him as a content dispute and recast himself as the victim, and the peanut gallery allowed to hurl abuse on the complainants, is all very unfortunate but also very predictable. I had thought that admin Kim was going to try to refocus things a bit, but perhaps he got sidetracked. At this point, unless we see some bold, rouge-type action there soon, it will almost certainly get tossed in Arbcom's lap. Actually, that probably will happen in the end regardless. Rivertorch (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't invited to this tea party, but if I may be so bold as to interject, Rivertorch is exactly right. The ANI process has likely failed. I'm very dismayed as some of the comments that have been made, and the attempts to derail the process, even by admins, but I'm not entirely surprised. The best thing to do at this point is to leave it be and hope that there is an admin with some integrity who will close the ANI soon, by objectively determining consensus. - MrX 19:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)