User talk:Riversider2008

WikiProject Philosophy task list A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Optimism should have a separate page that focuses on the philosophical idea of optimism and distinguishes the philosophical view from "positive thinking" and other everyday uses of the word. Philosophy of social science, has some okay points but requires elaboration on Wittgenstein and Winch, perhaps other linguistic critiques, whether logical positivist or postmodernist. Exchange value needs to be redone, it shouldn't be under 'Marxist theory'- although it's an important component of Marxist theory it's also vital for all economics. That said the article's weight on Marx is also absurd. German Idealism and the articles related to it may need to be rewritten or expanded to avoid undue weight on Arthur Schopenhauer. Protected values first section confuses right action and values and needs a copy edit, moving and wikifying Quality (philosophy) needs a more clear explanation. Socratic dialogues could do with some tidying and clarification. See the talk page for one suggested change. Problem of universals: The introductory definition is (perhaps) fixed. But, the article is poor. Check out the German version. Teleology: the article is shallow and inconsistent. Existentialism: the quality of this article varies wildly and is in desperate need of expert attention. Analytic philosophy This is a very major topic, but still has several sections which are stubs, and several topics which are not covered. Lifeworld A philosophical concept that seems to have fallen exclusively into the hands of the sociologists. Could use some attention; it's a major and complex issue in phenomenology. Perception Needs the attention of philosophically minded Wikipedians. This is only the start of an overhaul of perception and related articles. Edit this list | To do | stubs | Article alerts | Cleanup listing | Category | Portal | RFC | Deletion | Requested articles | Discussion

I've archived a few old discussions, a discussion around the NPOV dispute about the Mornington Crescent article which I feel has been resolved satisfactorily, and a helpful suggestion from another editor that I learn how to indent my talkpage contributions - I've worked out how to do this, and I can see it definitely helps with the readability of discussions.

In other news, I've registered myself as a 'Recent Changes' Patroller, I'm not technically minded, so I definitely belong to the 'old school' here. Nevertheless I think I've managed to clean up a fair amount of pointless vandalism, while being very calm and civil during the process. You will also see on my userpage that I've also signed up for the 'Counter Vandalism Unit' - basically because I love the cleaning lady logo.

It must be quite discouraging for someone who thinks it's clever to put in multiple factual errors and insults onto a Wikipedia article to find that their work has been reverted witnin 10 minutes of it being published - disappearing like a stone into a pond, but without the ripples. Finding that their hard work creates no impact whatsoever is definitely the best response this kind of vandal can receive. Riversider2008 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Games with concealed rules

Not sure what you mean; I just realised that you'd explained your edits on Talk:List of games with concealed rules, shortly after making them, so I thought I'd take the discussion there. Sorry for giving you one or more bogus new-message alerts. --McGeddon (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all McG. I've found you to be someone who is prepared to listen to a well-argued case, even when your instinct is to disagree. Riversider2008 (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions

"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. Let's not retreat from this excellent and principled position with moves that divide our community.Riversider2008 (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My Signature

Has changed. I'm still the same person. Riversider2008 has been updated for the new year Riversider (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Help me out?

I know you've been trying to find a compromise on FR, and wondered if you could help edit up User:Fritzpoll/BLPFlaggedRevs before I project-space it. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Delisting of Jimmy Wales

Riversider 2008, I have reverted your edits to the GA page. You removed the listing for Jimmy Wales, with an edit summary that implied that you thought the article was no longer of GA quality. However, there has been no reassessment on the article page (see WP:GAR) that would remove it's status of GA. If you wish to conduct an individual GAR, you are welcome to, or you can bring the article to a community reassessment. However, you may not just remove articles from the GA page without prior discussion. Please drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it Dana, I'm now following the procedure you suggested. Thanks.Riversider (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Riversider2008, thank you for your efforts here. For what it is worth, I agree with you completely. I think, in particular, that the ongoing highlighting of something entirely unimportant and barely mentioned anywhere else ("co-founder" pseudo-controversy) in the lead is just idiotic Is this really the most important component of my life story? I can't think of any rational argument that would support this - and certainly the press doesn't think so. I have been noted in the press for many interesting and likely important things, and this is really "inside baseball". I haven't read the article today - but even at a glance it is already starting to look better thanks to you bringing it to people's attention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Labour Party. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Snowded ^TALK 15:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems my intervention on this topic is not appreciated, despite the considerable number of published sources I've cited, and it's been suggested that I 'DROP IT'. In the interests of general conviviality, I'm happy to 'COOL IT' for a while on this issue. Riversider (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Morning Star in the Labour Party article

I have edited your contribution because the Morning Star article didn't use terms like "subservience". See what you think. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is absolutely correct RBS - rather an unencyclopedic word to have crept in there! Riversider (talk)

No worries Sir, always apreciate good collaboration like this RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue Labour

Thanks for your lovely comment on my talk page :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just found this article and wanted to say good work. Incidentally, I wasn't actually trying to be humerous. I heard the expression used with reference to Cameron shortly after the election, and seem to recall it was a commentator who used it. It's possible he was being humerous, I suppose, but it sort of fitted in with the whole Heir to Blair thing where Cameron was trying to position himself on a similar platform to Tony Blair. I haven't heard it used since last May, so I'm guessing it never really caught on. Happy editing, anyway. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Retroguy, thanks for the comments, sorry if my editing comment implied any lack of good faith, this certainly wasn't intentional. Riversider (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your great work on our Blue Labour article. If you havent already got it, Id recommend Tangled Up in Blue (2011 book) as an excellent source. Have been looking around and every single reviewer seems to think very highly of it, even those who rightly criticize Blue Labour's Hayeck inspired economic nonsense. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Blue Labour

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Emerentia

Hello! Your submission of Emerentia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is approved. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Emerentia

Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Person-centred planning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Normalisation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Liberal Democrats. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jeremy (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising with me that my edits appear to look like an 'edit war'. I've taken my argument to the talk page as you suggest Jeremy Riversider (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if I was overly brusque with you. I was frustrated that the edit war that has been going on for a number of weeks was continuing even after I had blocked the two main protagonists.—Jeremy (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jeremy, the compromise I've proposed on the talk page has not yet been objected to, I'm hoping that this particular, and rather silly, war is over. Riversider (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John O'Brien (advocate)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John O'Brien (advocate), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)