User talk:Rividian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Rividian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Louisville Invite

WikiProject Louisville		An invitation to join us!
		Your recent edits seem to indicate that you have some local knowledge of Louisville, Kentucky. If so, perhaps you would like to join WikiProject Louisville, a project for the creation, expansion and improvement of articles related to metropolitan Louisville. Check out our project page, and if you like what you see, join us by adding your name to our membership list. Hope to see you at WikiProject Louisville!

The more the merrier.--Bedford 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parkways of Louisville, Kentucky

On 14 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Parkways of Louisville, Kentucky, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On March 3, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Times Square Stores, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Nathan Paul. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. скоморохъ 04:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, mea culpa, I must have momentarily mistook you for the author. Regards, скоморохъ 14:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding History of Louisville, Kentucky

I am confused why you boldly change Nehrams2020's sweep count [1]. I am sure that Nehrams2020 is a more experienced in reviewing GA than you and I trust his judgement. Can you explain why you said "please follow the GA review guidelines (which require reading the articles you review) if you want to increase your tally here"? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The GA review guidelines say "Read the whole article" while on Talk:History of Louisville, Kentucky he admits he "didn't read the entire article" (exact quote). So it's clearly an invalid review. --Rividian (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Louisville, Kentucky

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest in the GA process. I can see that you disagree with the review that I performed on History of Louisville, Kentucky, but on Wikipedia, instead of continually reverting back and forth over disagreements, it is best to assume good faith and determine how the problem can be fixed. I reviewed the article several months ago and had a long discussion with W.marsh (who was a main contributer) who did a good job on writing/improving the article. If you believe that I did a "drive-by" review of the article, that is fine, you can see my explanation on the talk page of the article and determine your review based on the discussion. I explained my rationale for why the article should be delisted (it did not meet several of the criteria), and because no progress was appearing to be made in my explanation, I did not see it beneficial to continually make the same arguments over the review. Several times I stated that the article could be nominated at Good article reassessment (where other editors can determine if an error was made by the reviewer), and if you are interested in returning the article to GA status without changing its current state, I would recommend that. If you want to make the suggested corrections that were listed in the review, you can then renominate the article at Good article nominations. However, I do not see a need to edit war over something that should have been completed several months ago. Wikipedia functions better when editors work on collaborating on improving articles instead of continuously reverting each other. Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and if you have any further questions on the matter, I will be happy to answer them and try to clarify any issues you have. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read the entire article, and the guidelines say that you must. No ammount of boring and overlong comments will change that. I just don't want the article talk page to say it failed GA when a valid assessment was never performed. --Rividian (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over the guidelines, many people do not. More important than the guidelines for reviewing the articles is the criteria for passing the article. In the criteria, it clearly states that an adequate lead needs to be present along with inline citations for statistics and questionable statements. I stated that I did not read the whole article, which for some reason seems to be the main focus of the review, instead of the focus on improving the article. I read the majority of the article (about 80-90%), and did not deem it necessary to read every single sentence after the article already did not meet the criteria for remaining a GA. I read every section to get a overview of the quality of the article, and for some sections it wasn't completely necessary to read every fact. When an article is quick-failed because it has a cleanup tag at GAN, reviewers are not told to completely read the entire article when they already know it should be failed. Reviewers may do so to continue to tell nominators what the article should fix for their next nomination of the article. My apologies for writing "boring and overlong" comments, I just felt it best to properly explain my rationale for the review of the article. If you continue to think that my review was performed in error, feel free to use any of the two options I mentioned previously, or ask another one of the GA sweeps reviewers to perform a review on the article. All GAs will be reviewed for sweeps, and just because there is disagreement over how the review was performed, it still needs to be looked over. I welcome your comments and once again apologize for the long comment. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pricewatch

I have placed the original text of the article here: User:Rividian/Pricewatch. Regards, ... discospinster _talk 16:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States House of Representatives elections, 2008

The criteria being that they are in the above table as rated by Cook, Rothenberg, and CQ Politics? So the two sections should contain the exact same races? Qqqqqq (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That is my understanding, but the "Races by state" section contains prose summaries of those races... for people who want to read about the contested races looking at more than just the numbers. --Rividian (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- To me, the POV problem is that there are many races discussed as being competitive, without a definition as to what constitutes competitive; there are many races in the States section that are not in the Cook-Rothenberg-CQ chart. It's clearly a POV issue to say that some incumbent will "face a tough race" (as many of the race summaries state) when that race does not meet the criteria for inclusion as stated in the previous section. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Well unless we list every race except the ones where an incumbent is running unopposed, there's really no way to get around that... there's always going to be someone who thinks a given race is competitive. The article is workable using the criteria it does now... if there are unsourced claims about "facing a tough race" and other political cliches, feel free to remove them. --Rividian (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring at Play party (BDSM)

Hello Rividian. You and simonxag seem to be involved in an edit war on the above article. If the war doesn't stop immediately, you will both be blocked. I am closing the WP:AN/3RR case as 'Warned both editors.' A word to the wise is sufficient. If you have any further comments, add them to the discussion at the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just enforcing WP:V, he was adding unsourced material in direct contradiction of that core policy. He was in the wrong. Also, no one informed me of the 3RR notice. --Rividian (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My message above was your your notice, and I see you have reverted again since then. Reverting additions of unsourced material is *not* one of the exceptions described at WP:3RR unless it is a BLP case. Don't let yourself get blocked over a misreading of policy. Use your negotiating skills with the other editors, advertise the problem at a related WikiProject, tag the article regarding lack of references, or look stuff up yourself. I'm giving you one last chance to revert your last edit to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:V says "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The quote from Jimbo Wales in that section says it as well. They are added information in direct contradiction to WP:V, a core policy. Blocking me endorses their actions, which directly violate one of our core policies. How is that right? Their edits are indefensible. --Rividian (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a negotiation. Restore the material you removed or you will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll view this as a chance to learn a little deeper how the community works and how our policies are interpreted. There are two issues here: WP:V, and WP:3RR.

WP:3RR is an upper limit on edit warring; if you revert more than 3 times on the same article in a 24 hour window, you can be blocked even if you are right except for the special case of biographical articles. This is because reverting back and forth has proven over time to be a very poor way of reaching compromise. One essay that some people like to refer to is WP:BRD.

WP:V requires material to be verifiable but doesn't require that it actually be given a source unless it is a quote, disputed, or likely to be disputed. In practice, the community strongly disfavors removing large chunks of seemingly reasonable material only because no expicit reference has been given. It is possible to do so, but it requires discussing the matter on the talk page and explaining why you have a good reason to doubt the material is correct, or why you think it is original research. One place you can get outside opinions is at WP:NORN.

We can keep talking about this here; but you should let the ANI thread rest, as your edits are indeed a violation of the 3 revert rule. I don't think you knew about it, so I don't think it would be reasonable at all to block you for these edits, but now that you know, you should take care to avoid edit warring. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that we follow WP:V where it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If we can do that, I'm fine with never editing that silly article again. I regret edit warring, but then again, I was provoked into it by people violating a core policy, and one of whom admitted to gaming 3RR (see the article talk page). That has to count for something. --Rividian (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to assign any blame here. It is true that, in the end, the burden of evidence lies with the user who wishes to keep the material. But whether that burden has been met has to be decided through discussion, not by fiat of either side. In practice, it will always take some discussion if you plan to remove a significant amount of material.

In future cases, it may help to start by leaving a note on the talk page explaining your concerns. Give concrete examples of the statements you would like to see references for. If nobody responds, remove the most egregious unreferenced things, and see if anyone complains. Keep going that way, at a slow pace, to find out who is watching the article, and discuss it with them as they show up. It makes a huge difference if you have a good reason why you are challenging the material, beyond the mere lack of a reference - maybe you think it is false, or is original research, etc. Explain your concerns, so that the other edits can try to resolve them.

Also, remember that, on its own, a lack of sources isn't a reason to remove material that you think actually would be verifiable in reliable sources. All that WP:V requires is theoretical verifiability. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know... and none of what you say is a bad idea. I did doubt the verifiability of everything I removed though... and at least half of it was unencyclopedic even if verified (the etiquette section). I think I did explain all of this on the talk page. I'll take it more slowly next time... although hopefully there won't be a next time. I think I've learned dealing with these unreferenced sex articles is more trouble than it's worth, for my temperament at least. I'll stick to dealing with unreferenced articles on less incendiary topics :-) --Rividian (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate truth that some topics are easier to work on than others. Too many editors who patrol "controversial" topics are quick to view newcomers as vandals, and too slow to assume good faith. The best thing you can do as a newcomer is build their trust that you are working to improve the article in the end (rather than just looking to be an external enforcer, or looking to make them do work to maintain the status quo). Looking up a couple references in google books, and adding those, would be one way to demonstrate you are willing to help improve the article too.

Of course it's extremely reasonable to stick to articles you enjoy editing, and avoid articles that cause stress. And everyone's contributions are appreciated, regardless of subject area. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5/10 DYK

On 10 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lake Dreamland, Louisville, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, Lake Dreamland, Louisville, has been added to the Wikipedia Portal, Portal:Louisville. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.

--Bedford 02:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kristi Johnson

There doesn't appear to be much useful there; nevertheless, I'll userfy a copy of the last revision for you to User:Rividian/Kristi Johnson. I'll also cross-post this reply, unusually, because I nearly forgot about this request after reading it – inexcusable, I am sorry to have left it so long. Nihiltres^{t.l} 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted)

[edit] "Overtagging"

Please stop and take the time to read the tags before deleting them. The first tag, {{Refimprove}}, is for reference improvement- the references are poorly formatted and need to be cleaned up; the second, {{Unreferencedsection}}, points out that there is a lack of references in that particular section. While they are related in that they both refer to references, the tags cover different topics. Please pay better attention to what you are doing before making these types of edits. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just fix the article rather than make it look ugly with tags that never accomplish anything? Those tags are graffiti. --Rividian (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put them there, and I have worked on the article. I removed several other tags by fixing it up. Stop removing the others and put them back please, you are in danger of a 3R violation. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no point to the tag... I'm not going to add it back if there's no point to it. If there are challenged claims, please feel free to {{fact}} tag or remove them outright, I'm all for that. I'm just not for tags that no one can explain any point to on a given article. {{refimprove}} is for articles where the accuracy is compromised and more references are needed, that doesn't seem to be the case here. --Rividian (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ivana Loudová

The history shows that a large chunk of copyvio material was deleted, which did make the claim of notability in a more extended form. But in any case, it is often worth doing a quick Google search to see what's up with an article of this sort, and perhaps spending five minutes finding sources for the article. In this case, she is notable and I did. Slp1 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theos Bernard

Hi, Rividian! Thank you for tagging my article for history merge. I made the cut-and-paste error and had no idea that it could be solved by adding a tag. Carpe diem! Carpe Wikipediam! Pmronchi (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank the admin that finally does the merge, I'm just a lowly peon. It's a nifty tag though. --Rividian (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Structure101 Page

Hi Rividian,

Sorry to give you more work! :-)

I posted an article on Structure101 simply because it is now a requirement of the list of static analysis tools page that each product has its own Wikipedia page, and as Structure101 didnt have one, it was removed. My first attempt I guess was a little over-zealous. The new version is stripped down to the bare bones so hopefully its acceptable now. I have deleted any text I believe to be advertising from the initial posting. If I am still in violation of the rules I would appreciate your guidance in the matter.

Regards,

Pth81 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the deletion tags for now but I'll look at it again later today, I don't have time now. --Rividian (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

Not to pick nits, but I'm curious why you wrote "Hopefully not IRC" in your recent comment on User talk:MZMcBride. I suspect it has to do with the uproar that IRC decisions have caused in the past.

If I were to take a survey on IRC rather than the wiki, make a decision on that basis, and then defend myself from on-wiki objections by saying "But I asked on IRC and everyone said it was okay" — then I would deserve your criticism. My error would be mistaking IRC consensus for community consensus.

However, I did not do that. I found MZM on IRC and communicated with him by private message. This is more or less the same as e-mail, only more convenient. The traditional criticisms of IRC do not apply here. — Dan | talk 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment was more along the lines of "I hope it's somewhere I can actually see it" since I can't see IRC obviously. As well meaning as people may be, I just prefer stuff actually be done on Wikipedia where it can easily be examined to see what was actually said... rather than get it secondhand. A lot can be lost in translation. --Rividian (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is fair. I agree entirely with transparency as a general principle. In this situation, however, a brief private chat seemed like the quickest way to resolution -- I hate to see little problems like this erupt into unhappy dramas. What took place in private has now been brought, more or less in its entirety, into the open, and the problem has gone away (though do please let me know if further complications arise). I assure you, also, that I would treat you precisely as I treated MZMcBride, were you in a similar situation, presuming I were aware of it. It is not my habit to play spies, or conspire in secret. When I have private conversations like this I try to be politely businesslike, and to speak as though to a colleague, not as though to a friend. This seems to do the trick more often than not. — Dan | talk 05:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My main problem is, despite your assurances, MZMcBride is still dancing around saying he don't intend to run adminbots again... and makes it seem like the real problem is people being drama queens and harassing him. This is insulting... I just don't want unauthorized adminbots being run, this is not the first time I've been treated like dirt for actually expecting us to follow a very clearly written policy. This is why I would have preferred he make a clear statement on Wikipedia before unblocking. --Rividian (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Valley Foundation

Hey Rividian, I saw you put a speedy tag on this article; the creator's since removed it. I'm unfortunately about to head offline and go to bed, but would you mind following up on this and replacing the speedy tag if that material is still a copyvio? Thanks a lot. GlassCobra 05:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Still a copyvio... the diff makes it seem like it was rewritten, but I checked and all that was really done was a line of fluff was slightly rewritten and a few wikilinks were added. 99% of the text is still the same in the Wikipedia article as the URL. I re-tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks for the heads up. --Rividian (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ilulissat Declaration

Thank you for handling the transfer from quote to External link. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of Public Information

You deleted this entry as a possble copyright infringement. The publication cited was originally issued by the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. As a US Government publication, the Principles are in the public domain as defined under Title 17 USC §105. I added a public domain statement to the site this morning, but I am not sure it is in the correct form. Please restore the page and advise me if I need to assert the public domain status in a different manner. Thank you,

JudithRussell (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is now at User_talk:Rudget#Principles_of_Public_Information. I am going to have to move this to the talk page of the admin who deleted the article. (I am not an admin and can't restore articles) --Rividian (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Do I need to provide additional information to the admin? If so, how would I do that?

JudithRussell (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shiny!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For working quietly and without due praise at the often ignored and frequently backlogged WP:SCV. CIreland (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I came, I saw, I tagged 500 copyvios for speedy deletion. Story of my Wiki life... --Rividian (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You deserve a medal ...

for your work at the Smithers article!!! But I hope my admiration will suffice! --Slp1 (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! I was trying to figure out what on earth the block of text was when I realized it was actually someone quasi-notable and just felt like Wikifying it. --Rividian (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PD

This came up on another page I happened to notice--US Government web pages are always PD. Illustration on them occasionally aren't, but then the copyright on the illustration is specifically indicated. DGG (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What page are you talking about? I realize text produced by US government employees is PD. --Rividian (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6/14 DYK

On 14 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Transit Authority of River City, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 02:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, Transit Authority of River City, has been added to the Wikipedia Portal, Portal:Louisville. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.