Jump to content

User talk:Rationalobserver/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Objection

That diff shows a possibly gross misunderstanding of what Cassianto actually meant, if we assume good-faith on his part, and nothing more. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC) You're rationalizing, Rationalobserver. (Since when does anyone use phrase "fucking victim" to mean "rape victim"? The only reasonable good-faith explanation for that, is if the user was not proficient in English, e.g. if English wasn't the user's first language. But that possibility was removed with that user's "double-meaning" comment. So, tell me how you're not rationalizing here, it seems plain that you are.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing got convoluted. First of all I basically agree that the interpretation is far from reasonable, but to assert that ORY is playing everybody seems like an AGF fail. Maybe you're right, and ORY is making a ridiculous claim in an attempt to make Cassianto look bad, but I think the safer assumption is that they were looking for insults where none existed. My basic position is that, according to numerous editors, the interpretation made by ORY is not realistic, so it will be ignored. That ought to be enough here, since no admin blocked them in a timely fashion despite the great amount of interest this incident has garnered. A block at this point would be stale, so what exactly is the point of going on and on about how they should have been blocked? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
At this point I agree that a block at this point would be stale, but what I didn't know is the history Cassianto had regarding these same type of things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh for sure. He and Schrocat get into lots of these kerfuffles, but I guess not enough yet. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

For you

The Barnstar of Diligence
This is for trying your best to make Wikipedia a better place. Hopefully these cliques and toxic-ness can disappear. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I deserve this, as I've made no discernable impact, but thanks for the sentiment. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes you can be awarded for the small things that add up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doctor

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Doctor. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Friendly advice.

Recomend that you 'reverse' your deletion of another editor's post at ORY's talkpage. It's best to let ORY decide on that matter :) GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, but I can't imagine why they would want that to remain. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As a member of Retention, I'm just trying to make sure Wikipedia doesn't loose editors ;) GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It's all good. I hadn't realized that Cassianto was "retired", which I still doubt, but I appreciate your advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for trying to remind the Wikipedia community that we have a civility policy. In the midst of abuse, you stood up to be counted. While suffering from personal attacks on all sides, you took a stand. As editors and admins alike tried to intimidate, harass, and weaken your resolve, you remained strong. You spoke for those who lack a voice, and those who have been beaten down by admins for saying "no more". For all this and more, I say thank you. Viriditas (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
That's very kind of you; thanks! It's difficult sometimes to do the right thing when the "powers that be" put so much effort into dissuading you, but positive reinforcement like this barnstar can go a long way towards reaffirming that you are not alone. It also reminds me that the vocal and aggressive few in no way represent all of us, thank goodness! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the barn-star Rational someone has to stand up for those editors being put down, I just got on or else I would have put my thoughts in too. You point to a real problem tha tso many ignore, at one point do user contributions get so good that it qualifies an editor to treat others like garbage? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, KK87! I'm truly astonished that the two opposing groups hold such radically different views of this place and civility in general. I'm not sure if there are any obvious solutions, except that the incivility warriors derive most of their influence from teaming up on people, and always supporting each other, so maybe if we all bonded together as well we might be able to defend ourselves better. But as soon as someone complains, they start in with the obligatory labels, "you're disruptive", "you're a sock", "you're not here to build an encyclopedia", and related transparent tactics to discredit people. I've written 5,000 words in the last three weeks, but apparently I am not contributing enough to justify voicing my opinion in threads that interest me. Of course their standard only applies to those in the gang, and the rest of us "just don't get it". The short-term looks pretty bleak, but in time these bullies will be weeded out by a new generation that won't act as tyrannical and aggressive. At least I certainly hope that's the case. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Right now things are tense, I would wait a few days and revisit all of this on the WP:PUMP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you'll find that we are in the majority. It's time to start building bridges and coalitions composed of editors who will no longer stand idle while others are being attacked and denigrated. Just be mindful of what's going to come from this, how the opposition will stalk and target your articles, try to get you involved in an edit war, and make up a rationale for blocking you. Don't be fooled by this game. To avoid falling for this trap, don't make any reverts and use the talk page to engage in calm talk. If you must revert, do so only once a day, if at all. Don't respond to incivility with incivility, respond with kindness and a polite reminder about the civility policy. Understand that some editors have antisocial attitudes, others are drunk or on drugs, and still others have psychological problems that we can't address. Above all, remain true to yourself and stay above the fray. If you can't avoid conflict, reach out to likeminded editors and admins for support. Find allies and make friends, and stay positive. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Well said, Viriditas! That's fantastic advice. You can count on me! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Review of Henry Fownes Luttrell

Hello, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to review this article. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC).

My pleasure! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Great work Rational =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user helped promote Henry Fownes Luttrell to good article status.
=) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No, Kk87. That doesn't seem right at all and in fact looks a bit point-y to me. The reviewer is not a "helper", but rather (and it is generally hard work, if done properly) a reviewer. You can't be inside the process and "award" yourself. I know of reviewers who list articles that they have reviewed, sometimes with the tiny GA icon on their user page, but I cannot recall one who tags like this and, given various concerns, the review might perhaps have been sub-optimal anyway. I suggest not rubbing salt into any wounds that may exist because they might reflect unfairly on the person who actually did most of the work and who seems to be entirely amenable to continuing discussions regarding improvement. I may be wrong but I think you have suggested this for entirely the wrong reasons. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Id say the reviewer does a big job, they address the problems an article has someone had to review the article and make judgements based on how it was coming along. I don't know why editors are taking issue with Rational's review, don't you have better things to do like improve the encyclopedia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way last I checked the article was pretty much dormant not having been edited since September, 2014, Rational worked with Noswall59 to get it up to GA and you and Eric jumped in to criticize. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    Check again. Doesn't have RO have anything better to do than to carry out sub-optimal GA reviews? Eric Corbett 02:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Eric english Wikipedia has over 4,000,000 articles, is there any reason why you chose to follow her to this one? Maybe you had it on your watchlist but from what I see only after it was promoted to a Good article did you and Sitush jump in, the article's history speaks for its-self. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Kk, there is something that I cannot tell you on-wiki and you do not have email enabled, so that is tough I guess. Regardless, there is nothing wrong with checking out the edits of other people whom you come across. That has long been acceptable practice and is not a measure of stalking/hounding, as some people claim on occasion. In particular, someone with the GA experience of Eric should be welcomed to such a process, not maligned for it. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sitush: If you are talking about Rational's post I saw it, she reverted Eric and the reason being was a tit for tat banning from the talk-page so in my view it is reasonable to think that Rational was trying to avoid the drama and Eric followed her there. Even if it was in good faith, things should have been mended first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly, Ive had enough of this drama, I placed the GA tag there because I thought Rational worked with Noswall to improve the article, no strings, no salt rubbing, it impressed me more that Rational was taking herself away from drama involving User:Cassianto to edit. You can believe me you don't have to but a GA is a GA in my view and articles are always open for improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If that - "a GA is a GA" - is your opinion then why do we have WP:GAR, for starters? The article is way more decent than most but it is not GA. The daft thing is that, as said above, the main contributor is open to further suggestions and that is likely to avoid a situation where the thing is actually referred to GAR. On the other hand, if I was a badge-collector, it seems that I should encourage you to review many of the articles in which I've had a lot of involvement because it seems that you would award me another shiny something-or-another. What do you think of Nair, for example? GA is basically the opinion of one reviewer, who may or may not really have the knowledge; FA is a different ball-game. FWIW, I've had someone pass an article as GA and then discovered that they were a prolific and rather dodgy sock: if it were not for my own reasonable confidence in my abilities regarding that article, I would have self-submitted it to GAR. - Sitush (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Because of this? You will learn, soon enough, that you are slavish in your support. - Sitush (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Sitush. Every day is a learning experience. Now could you please take this elsewhere? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Support for what? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, could I ask you to refrain from commenting on this subject here, please? You are indirectly contributing to drama-mongering. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A Lesson to you

I have no idea (but it will come out in the wash - things always do) who put you up to the idea that you could be the heroine who brought down Eric Corbett alone, but it was a ridiculous notion based on rubbish and far too thin ice; I suspect you realise that now. Sometimes, those who seem our friends on Wikipedia are not quite what they seem and often driving their own agendas, but they like a stooge to test the ice for them. With the benefit of your experience and hindsight, I wish you happy editing and look forward to seeing some good pages. Giano (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No one put me up to anything, Giano, that's the truth. The accusations about conspiracies are fantasy, at least as far as them involving me. I've only ever emailed one person on here, and it had nothing to do with EC. I never wanted to bring him down, I just wanted him to be held accountable for his actions, as others are, but I'll just stay away because it's not my place, and it seems futile anyway. I think it's a sad state of affairs when one editor is held up as valuable at the expense of all others, but I suppose he is too entrenched to do anything about that now. I didn't expect to find such a problem with cliques around here, but I suppose there is no reason why this particular group of people would be above that most immature of social structures. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be around, as the toxic culture here is off-putting, and I can't seem to find anyone interested in reviewing my work, but thanks for encouraging me nonetheless. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If you want your work reviewed, then one of the worst thing you can do is alienate User:Eric Corbett. Look at his user page and see how many GA's he's reviewed! Probably if you had just gone to his talk page and asked him to review your GA nominations, he would have done so. He often helps new editors. EChastain (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@EChastain: His edits have been toxic and unhelpful to the encyclopedia the only reason why he is still around is because of "all of these good GA noms" other than that from his cursing others out to his gang chiming in to put down editors on his talkpage it is nothing and im not the only one who feels this way. Oh and if you are hoping that talking to Eric will do any good, he already told Rational to stay off of his talkpage and reverted her when she tried to reason. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Rational, Giano and EC here are on Eric's side and see him as "untouchable" and can never do any wrongdoing, my advice would to be just edit articles if you don't want to take part in all of this, there are good editors here so stick around =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
EC couldn't even admit that an article has Oxford commas that shouldn't, so I would rather retire than suffer a review from him, which would probably be populated with insults regarding my Americanisms anyway, and how people from the US are idiots. It baffles me really, that he is held up as so great, because I am quite unimpressed with what I've seen, and I think there are several editors who are as good or much better writers then he is, but they don't get the license to abuse, so I really don't know why he does. Well, maybe I do know; it's probably no more than the usual deeply entrenched person who has made enough friends that he always has more support than opposition, particularly when he disagrees with relatively new editors who haven't yet secured a position in a clique. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Rational there are some here who do believe that there is an agendas at work here or conspiracies but unless there is concrete evidence of it its all a load of hot air, my opinion anyways. As I have said please don't leave Wikipedia isn't all toxic I mean why not just nestle yourself into a wikiproject or try editing a select group of articles? Ignore all of this crap you don't need the drama. For me, I am going to defend other editors who feel put down by any kinds of cliques here on Wikipedia as I want to try to make this a more inviting place to be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If there is a conspiracy to drive him away there is also a conspiracy to keep him at all costs, including the reputation of Wikipedia and every female editor he has ever attacked. You're right, of course, the best thing is to ignore it and keep editing stuff I'm interested in, so I'll do that instead of complaining. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome and enjoy editing here, this will pass for now I expected you to get fallout comments. You are right part of Wikipedia is toxic but that just means it needs fixing and mending just like any other thing that gets broken over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If the pair of you took your own advice, instead of both reverting a former arbitrator at ANI as you did a few minutes ago, then perhaps it would go some way towards calming the waters? Just a thought. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the waters would have been calmed as the edit summary is still intact. I understand why Rational was upset though it did feel like Bug's comment was singled out when nothing has been happening regarding the outcome of the thread. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sitush, you should really stop trying to pull rank on everyone. I mean, does a former arbitrator have more rights than the rest of us? Casliber is too biased towards one side to act objectively, and if he wanted to remove rude comments he shouldn't cherry-pick those from the side he disagrees with, as there is no shortage of personal attacks made by the incivility warriors, which he has ignored. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yet again you misread me, Rationalobserver. It may be that you are not a native speaker of the language, in which case please accept my apologies for not making myself clear. I'm just someone who wants all this crap to stop and it isn't likely to stop any faster when relatively inexperienced contributors get involved in a spat involving two highly experienced contributors, both of whom are more than capable of looking after themselves. Early in my time here someone much wiser advised me to "choose my fights carefully". They were right. And now back to work I go, as I hope do you - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Rationalobserver and Knowledgekid87 have you any idea how your misplaced ideas are thoughts are beginning to sound. I am beginning to see Eric as Cinderella and you two as ...........Well I am sure you can work it out. All we need now is Sandstein to assume the role of Fairy Godmother. You need to get a grip and listen to yourselves. Giano (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't retire, RO. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GD. I appreciate the encouragement. I'm not going to retire in the immediate future, as I don't want to leave on a bad note, especially one that has anything to do with EC. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am going to go back to editing articles for awhile and take your advice, I don't want to be in this drama anymore, I mean I will stick up for editors when I see it but I have been too invested in this. What bothers me most of all is the agenda and conspiracy theories floating around. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a smart move, as the best way to dispel these ridiculous rumors is to disengage; however; that's also exactly what they want to do, so I'm not convinced that the conspiracy theories are honest concerns; they are more likely efforts to discredit us as people. The fastest way to get what you want around here is to scare those who disagree with you into silence, but I don't see any other choice. I think the situation around here will not improve much until we get enough new blood that the old blood has less influence, but I also think the nature of this experiment is such that those who cannot sustain the effort leave, and the only ones left are the ones who are so entrenched and passionate there is no removing them. Anyway, I'd avoid any discussions that center around the incivility warriors, as it's really just fuel for their fire to disagree with them, as they appear to thrive on dysfunction. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Irataba‎

Hi RO, I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten your request re: the above, and that I will try to get to it after February 6. All the best, Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah! Rationalobserver (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rose-Baley Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High desert. 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) 09:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Azure

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Azure. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

Please comment on Talk:Rosamund Pike

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rosamund Pike. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review of Zhu De

Hello Rationalobserver,

Nice to meet ya. I came across the article Zhu De, which you recently reviewed and passed as a Good Article. I also noticed that the references in the article are not full citations; rather, they were simply links with titles. This is not ideal, as it is not effective in combating link rot. I realize that having full citations with authors, dates, and titles is not explicitly mentioned in the GA guidelines but I feel that it is a good thing to look out for in future reviews. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 06:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious what you are asking Raionalobserver to do, Airplaneman. Anything more than checking for link integrity goes beyond the GA requirements. Can you take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations so we can discuss this with the greater community? Putting this on the shoulders of Rationalobserver is a bit too much, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was wrong – this is indeed beyond the scope of a GA review. I'm not sure this is something that can be consistently asked for. Airplaneman ✈ 01:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Airplaneman: One way to address it would be to make a link available to both nominators and reviewers that would automate the process of filling out the references. I know that there are ways to do this with scripts offline and with programs like Zotero. If all nominators and reviewers had to do was push a button, that would get us half of the way there... Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

2nd opinion

Editing the WP:GAN page doesn't trigger the request, you need to put the second opinion request on the Talk page of the article by changing the status to status=2ndopinion as per WP:GAI. Hope that helps. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that explains why it kept disappearing. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Irataba

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Irataba you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rose-Baley Party

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rose-Baley Party you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Request

Would you be willing to review Chi (Chobits)? I have done a-lot of work on the article the past few days. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure I will. Thanks for asking! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will address any concerns you have in the upcoming days. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Do you mind if I make a few copyedits along the way, or are you looking more for advice? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No I don't mind, go ahead and thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I will be offline for an hour (Dinner) but will be back to check out what you wrote or thought of the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that the article is at GAN. Are you asking me to formally review it, or just make a few copyedits and comments at talk? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Im asking you to review it and/or make the comments at the talk-page, I don't know if it is quite ready yet but would address any concerns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll be going to bed soon, so it'll be tomorrow, but I'd be happy to make a few edits and suggestions. I'm just not sure if you want me to do the GA review or an informal PR at article talk. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay and either or would be fine, if it is grammer issues that can be easily fixed. A GA review would be nice though so I can see overall what needs to be done. Have a good night. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to correct the spelling in the article. I had a feeling you didn't know much about anime and manga which is part of the reason why I asked you to review the article for a fresh set of eyes to the average reader. I will work more on the article later today. (Its 12:43 here) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome! I hope my comments are helpful despite my lack of knowledge about anime and manga. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I added symbols to the GA review feel free to add unresolved issues or remove issues that have been resolved (Strikeout). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, great. I'll be pretty busy this weekend, so I'm not sure I'll be around here too much, but I'll catch up with you and the GAN on Monday at the latest. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem =), the GA is waiting for your review I left questions and made some corrections for you to leave feedback on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on developments what do you think I should do? Other editors are saying what they feel are wrong but when it comes down to it they aren't suggesting anything of value or anything at all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the activity at talk casts doubt on the article's stability, and while I planned on passing the GAN after some improvements, I am now leaning towards failing it due to instability. Ideally, you and the other two editors who identified concerns would work together to resolve them to your mutual satisfaction, but if the other editors aren't willing, the content will fall to you. My biggest concern here is that my lack of knowledge about anime and manga make me a poor judge of their concerns. If I fail the GAN, I strongly recommend starting a peer review before re-noming, where you invite the others to comment. I haven't decided just yet, but I don't want to be seen as making a supervote over the concerns at talk, and to be honest I was having some trouble with the prose in general anyway, as evidenced at the GAN. I won't make a decision until February 20. So please take the next couple of days to work out as many of these issues as you can. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI

I brought up your name regarding EC's edit towards you. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive edits on my talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to get you drawn into something else just I didn't think what went on was right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries, KK87! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Irataba

The article Irataba you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Irataba for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Irataba

The article Irataba you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Irataba for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joseph Kobzon

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joseph Kobzon. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rose-Baley Party

The article Rose-Baley Party you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Rose-Baley Party for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rose-Baley Party

The article Rose-Baley Party you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rose-Baley Party for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Version 2.0

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Version 2.0. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

SPI

I've never done this, and no it has nothing to do with Charles Dickens as you suggested on my page. Your edits were eerily familiar and it's only common courtesy to let you know that I've filed an SPI, found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. Victoria (tk) 18:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me why your first project of the day was to confront my work? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver, I've stuck up for you in the past,[1][2] but your reaction to this is puzzling - especially when you started this discussion.[3] Take a day off, maybe? Lightbreather (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Quitting?

Let's not have anymore of this retiring talk, shall we? GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's nice of you, but sorry, but these accusations are getting to be too much. Every time I disagree with someone they accuse me of something, and I was on the fence anyway. I'll stick around until the paraphrasing issue is resolved and the SPI closed, but this is the last straw for me.Rationalobserver (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Please don't go, you are just letting these other people win. You know you aren't abusing multiple accounts so don't even give it a second thought. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been accused so many times now that my work won't ever be taken seriously, and I'm not going to stick around here so others can use me as a punching bag. I think I must threaten these people, because I find it really hard to believe that I am so similar to ItsLassieTime that they have attacked me with such ferocity. Mediocre writers often resent good ones, and I'll assume that's what's happened here. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, you are a great reviewer here and as it is could use your review for the Chi article, forget these people Wikipedia is a big place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
That's very nice of you, but this place doesn't deserve me, and I don't stand by and take abuse like you have to to get along here. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are quitting then please would you ask for a second opinion (Another reviewer) to look over Chi (Chobits)? You just have to place "status=2ndopinion" Im sorry to see you go and really wish you wouldn't but wish you the best of luck in everything when you do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I won't retire until after the SPI closes and the accusations about close paraphrasing are resolved. I.e., I plan to finish your GA review, probably tomorrow as planned. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've got more Wiki-scars on me, then most Wikipedians. But, I'm not quitting. If I can survive this place? anybody can. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe; I'll think it over. Regardless, thanks for your encouragement and support! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive1

In future I really advise you to open a Peer review before going straight to FAC, especially just after passing GA...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that's good advice, but it's too late now. I still say it's an excellent article that I am quite proud of having written. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you ransacked google books in your research? You have access to Newspapers.com right?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've gleaned Google books, but I didn't know about Newspapers.com. Thanks! I wish I had known about that before I wrote the article, as, due to recent events, I don't think I'll be here much longer. Nonetheless, I truly appreciate your advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Bearing in mind peer reviews take an ice age for anybody to review them, many people take the gamble of bringing it to FAC first. Irataba is a great article, when I reviewed it I thought it was enjoyable to read and comprehensive - I think those are the true qualities that make up a good article, hence why everybody loves my reviews!! I hope you'll consider sticking around, as I'm sure a lot of good content will follow. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much the gamble of taking it straight to FA, it's the poor general turn out which often leads to them being archived. A peer review does more than identify issues, it increases awareness and interest from decent editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your encouragement, and I agree that I would have created lots of good content, but this last accusation is too much for me to stomach, especially when it's two women attacking another under ridiculously false pretenses. But I won't decide until the SPI closes and I've heard from MRG regarding the paraphrasing, so there is a greater than zero chance Ill reconsider. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not leave! You are much too valuable to lose. Hang around, talk to the right people, and this can be worked out. Gandydancer (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
That's what I have been saying, she is a really good person and editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ahh, that's so nice of you guys, really. Maybe. But it might not be up to me anyway, depending on the SPI. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is set in stone, all they have to go on are he said she said arguments. There is no solid evidence linking you two and I expect the SPI to be closed as no geo matchup anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As everything said above, it looks like you have a lot of support and people can see your honesty regarding this situation. Wikipedia can be very challenging at times, and I don't know if it's in my place to say this but I've retired twice but still managed to come back wiser than before. Read this if you need cheering up, it was the worst experience of my online life... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jaguar. It always helps to be reminded that I am not alone, and this happens all the time. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't cheer me up to see what they put you through, but it does cheer me up to see that you've persevered. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There are always jerks in the world wherever you go sadly, most are friendly and act in good faith but there are always those who live to make life miserable for others. Just look at people who make computer viruses for the fun of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We're still marching along ...

Thanks for joining the parade!
Thanks for joining the parade! It's 102 years later, and we're still marching along.
So don't duck out just yet sister, the party's just getting started ... ;) Djembayz (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
This really means a lot to me, so thanks a million for the encouragement and support! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Clarification requested

I'm trying to defend you on the SPI, but I can't make heads or tails of these two edits:

Can you explain why you made them? What was the point in contacting Victoriaearle and leaving that comment, and what was the point in making the comment on the Saint Francis talk page? You're only giving ammunition to your critics. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I made the first one because yesterday at 10:26 I made this edit, and after saving I saw Victoria's name in the section above it. Then, 36 minutes later she started in on me. I got the feeling that maybe I was starting to work on an article she had planned to get to, and she was doing this to drive me away.
I made the second edit because I was trying to show that this isn't about close paraphrasing or source integrity, and that she was being a hypocrite to hold me to a standard she doesn't herself achieve. She's attempting to use the CP issue to prove I am ILT, but if that's really evidence then her work looks equally problematic to me. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't be editing anywhere near those articles. Outside observers might think you are editing vindictively in a manner similar to a sockpuppet. Please extricate yourself from any articles related to your accusers and don't make attacks on their talk pages. Regardless of how you feel about SV or what she did, your comments on her talk page were not helpful. If you aren't a sock, then you need to be extra careful to remain above the fray. Don't keep giving your critics ammo to use against you. I have to say that you aren't exactly making the best decisions here. Focus on content, not conflicts. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify that I opened the SPI in my own misguided volition and not SV. And, see the thread below. Victoria (tk) 13:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, I agree. You're right. I've been acting out of pathos instead of my usual logos, but it looks like we can all put this behind us and move on now. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help and input on Chi (Chobits). =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm really impressed with how you worked with the others to find an acceptable consensus. Great job! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

I did say that if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to apologize. So here I am, hat in hand, shuffling my feet, egg on my face, offering a sincere apology. Also, you may not want it after the past few days, but just to let you know that I'm willing to pitch in and help with some rewriting on Rose-Baley or just to give advice regarding sourcing. Again, very sorry. Victoria (tk) 13:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, I'm a very forgiving person, and I thought right from the start of this that you were acting in good-faith, so I'll not hold any grudges. I'm impressed that you've kept your word and apologized here, and I think that shows a depth of character that is quite commendable. We all make mistakes, but only mature people have the emotional intelligence to own up to it like you have. There are no hard feelings on my end, and I hope we can work together in the future! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the RBP article, I would strongly prefer if you left me to improve it with the help of others, and took your leave from commenting there, as I'm not overly trusting of your judgment there due to recent events. Is that acceptable? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I left an explanation there. Victoria (tk) 18:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll reiterate. I would strongly prefer to receive guidance on these issues from someone other than you. Are you willing to voluntarily give me my space, or do I need to request a formal IB? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I realize how you must feel right now, but I think pursuing an IB right now is a big mistake. It sounds like Victoria is only trying to help. It would be to your benefit to accept her participation and to force yourself to get along with her and others. It may be difficult for you, and you may not like what they have to say, but different opinions can often help shape and improve articles. Viriditas (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm still a bit traumatized by the SPI, and more to the point, I do not trust her instincts or judgment, and the Copyright clerk has confirmed that she has some stuff mixed up. At this point, if my only choice is to work with her or quit I'd quit in a heartbeat. There are lots of other people who can help me with this issue, so in this instance I'll not be accepting your advice. I'm surprised you didn't suggest Victoria give me some space for a few weeks then ask later. The timing of this is terrible, when I want need to move on from this traumatic experience. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Done be, shake it off and move on, what is done is done you were vindicated and there are a-lot of editors here that support you. You two need time apart and I am trying to start with it being voluntary rather than straight to an IB. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I cannot imagine why Victoria would object to leaving me alone. She has been gunning for me for several days straight, and I've only been exonerated for a few hours, and now she wants to force mentor me. I haven't even caught my breath yet. It's not going to happen. I'm standing my ground. To be clear, though, this isn't only a response to the stress she's caused me, but I do not trust her judgment, at all! Also, she and her friends are still acting as though I'm someone who needs to be suspected, so she is not letting go of her massive mistake, apology or not. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IMO you are both being very unfair to RO. She's been through the wringer and needs some recovery time. There is no reason at all that she should be expected to move forward as though nothing has happened. I've worked for years with people who have been through trauma and we would not have dreamed of subjecting the wounded person to this sort of thing before they had had some recovery time. There are plenty of others available to give her any help she may need. Gandydancer (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you see it that way. But, what's really going on here, is that RO is trying to improve a set of articles and the very editors who are involved in this interpersonal dispute just so happen to be active in this article improvement area (GAN, FAC, etc.) So it's to her benefit to put her personal feelings aside and to work with them, because this is just going to come up again soon enough and we'll be back here discussing it again. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Now's not the time; it's too soon. Plus, Victoria and her friends are still acting as though I'm someone who needs to be suspected, and I won't work with her as long as she is playing both sides. You've been a big help to me, but can't I disagree with you about anything? To be honest, when I logged-in today I thought, great this is finally over, but you and Victoria are making this another bad day for me, so please just stop being so demanding that I interact with her. 24 hours ago she was trying to get me indeffed as a sock-troll, and now she's going to show me the ropes at gun point? There are lots of GA and FA writers that could help me; she's the worst possible choice. Hell, I'd rather take help from Eric Corbett before her! But maybe I'll just quit and let you guys work together, or request that those articles get deleted before I quit. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You can disagree with me on whatever you like, I don't mind. I'm not demanding you interact with her, I said you should force yourself to get along with her and other people who you are involved in conflicts with on these articles. That's all I said. The best way to do this is through the article improvement process. You're not going to be able to avoid any of these editors as they are all highly active in those areas. So, you are free to do what you like, but just remember, if you don't seize the opportunity to solve this now, we will be here again soon enough. You need closure, and the best way to do that is to move on. No grudges, no regrets, and no feelings of victimization. I realize you don't want to hear that, and you'll certainly receive encouragement from others to do the opposite. But I will tell you now, if you don't solve this problem here, you will be forced into it again in the coming weeks. I don't want you to quit, but if that's what you want, follow your heart. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Victoria thanked Montana for this vicious comment, and now you want her to force mentor me? Can you please just stop adding pressure to an already stressful thing? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't said anything about force mentoring. I'm taking this page off of my watchlist because I can already see where this is going. Good luck with your future endeavors. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, please don't un-watch me over this little point. I just need some distance, as I am too emotional today to decide anything. But maybe you misunderstood me. All I'm saying is, I will learn all the necessary skills and expectations from someone other than Victoria, who is currently acting as if I am a sock that got off the hook, which is a complete negation of any supposed apology. You said above, "I said you should force yourself to get along with her", and I assumed you meant so that I could learn about attribution and paraphrasing from her (do you realize she's still going at me at the RBP article?), which sure sounds like a forced mentorship to me. Please explain what you meant if not that? I don't always know what you mean right away. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

IB

Rational, I feel that you should go ahead and ask for the interaction ban, I saw Montana's comment and right away saw that she was gunning for you which isn't going to happen if you continue just editing like you usually do. At this time ask for the IB and put this behind you, time to move on okay? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is sooooooo disheartening. Victoria thanked Montana for this vicious comment, and now she's going to force mentor me? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said ask for the IB and move past this. You don't have to let this one thing define things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll wait to see if Victoria will voluntarily leave me alone. If she refuses, I'll reconsider asking for an IB. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you being forced to take a mentor? I don't know what to say about that. However, if you want a mentor, contact I JethroBT. He's good-people and might be able to match you with someone compatible. Lightbreather (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the lead, I really appreciate it! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I take back what I said before, things seem to have calmed down, happy editing! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We're all in this together

The Good Heart Barnstar The Good Heart Barnstar
As you wander around Wikiworld keep a kind heart for those you think are hurtful to you. You will eventually see that they were helpful rather than hurtful. . Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
That's very good advice. I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I concur, nice to see that this mess is over now, we should all move on now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry also

Rationalobserver, I do apologise to you. Long ago I remember Victoriaearle being harassed by sockpuppets so I overreacted this time in trying to find evidence. This was wrong of me and I'm obviously unfamiliar with the basics of how to detect a sockpuppet. When you pointed out that one of the listed sockpuppets was quickly vindicated but still listed as an ItsLassieTime sock, I started to look at the previous evidence for socks of ItsLassieTime and was shocked to see that many were blocked for seemingly no reason. Many had no or few contributions. And I didn't know what to think when an editor said: We have blocked as "unknown master" for less. If there is no identified master, how is there evidence to block for socking? So again, I'm so very sorry for the role I played and feel it was irresponsible of me. Hopefully this all dies down quickly and you can edit peacefully. EChastain (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, EChastain. I gladly and fully accept your apology. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Irataba

As it happens I started the review of this simultaneously (saw the posts in the same watchlist update) with the post which made me aware of the SP investigation. Since that is now resolved, I am continuing the review, but have nothing to say today as I ended up correcting Mojave Desert instead! --Mirokado (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the update. I'm not in a hurry, so take your time. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi RO. You've probably already checked, but just in case, have you looked for Irataba information on JSTOR? There's lots of useful, academic information on there. Many editors here have access to it (i'm applying for same), so if you don't, one of them might be able to supply you with it.-RHM22 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, RHM22! I think I've already gleaned jstor pretty well, but I'll take another look to be sure I didn't miss anything. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought you'd have checked there already, but I wanted to make sure. You'd be surprised how many people don't know about JSTOR (I was one of them until recently).-RHM22 (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's great, and you can get 6 articles per month for free! Rationalobserver (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but Wikipedia editors are allowed to request full and unlimited JSTOR access for free. I don't think you will qualify yet, because your edit count is probably too low, and I don't think you've been registered long enough.-RHM22 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Version 2.0

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Version 2.0. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roy Moore

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roy Moore. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

EC

Well as someone watching from the sidelines I can say im totally unsurprised with the chat result between you and EC. Did you expect him to welcome you with open arms? Rational, there are plenty of editors here who wouldn't throw a "I think that you cannot be serious" remark right at your face when asking for help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It never hurts to try. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
True, and for a moment there I had hope things were going to work out, I had noticed him getting better as well, but still had my doubts. Anyways my advice going forward is to just steer away I mean there are plenty of helpful editors here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It came back to bit you here though, you have to know that there are a circle of editors here on Wikipedia who defend each other like crazy. Your mistake was going to Drmies for help, if you look at Corbett's talkpage history you will know why. Anyways I hope you come back after all of this I cant say I blame you though if you want to call it quits. I believe you are innocent here, you asked for help on Eric's talkpage and while Eric did turn down your offer Montana made things worse by ganging up on you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgekid - please be careful to not cast aspersions regarding other editors. If you do wish to discuss something about another editor, it would be much more polite to at least ping @Drmies: and @Montanabw:. Also please note that in regards to "It came back to bit(e) you here..." the block issued was not for a request of help, but rather by returning in such a manner when that request was denied. — Ched :  ?  14:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Too late, @Ched:, I have blocked him for inflaming the situation by making derogatory statement of named individuals. The block is for 72 hours. I think we have had quite enopugh of this stirring up trouble! I am open to review this decision if a responsible admin wishes to discuss it with me, though. However, I think a stop needs to be made to these inflaming insinuations.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Donner Party

Rationalobserver, are you looking for trouble?

EChastain (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@EChastain: Just my thoughts but when an article is linked of course it is going to be read, if the source isn't reliable then it will help the article in the end so there really isn't a need to blow this up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh I want to add, had Eric just said this as a reply using the Donor party as an example [9] then im convinced none of this would have happened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, what you, Rationalobserver, have done is baited and harrassed Eric Corbett on his talk page when you have history of fractious communication with Eric Corbett. I am warning you now, if I see you do this again, then you may find yourself blocked (not by myself, but it could be). There is no need to argue the point, the evidence is clear. Whether action is taken or not taken against Eric Corbett for responding to this is a different matter. I am only concerned with your behaviour here.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ddstretch: These paint a different story though

What happens after that is the breaking point with everyone making poor choices. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Two wrongs do not make a right. I am sure there are plenty who will take Eric Corbett to task over the style of his interactions, but given the fractious interactions between the two of them, both need to be told this must stop.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree there, and feel that RO would agree to stay away from EC after what unfolded, this wont happen though with others linking to her edits on Eric's talkpage. The more people involved the worse things get. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think RO would be well advised to move away from that article, since it might appear to others that it was chosen just because Eric edited it in a major way (because of the history between the two). There are plenty of others that can be edited. What I am saying is that RO cannot claim terrible action on the part of EC very much if a deliberate choice is made to edit articles EC has had a major hand in editing up to that point. It's not an issue of ownership, it's an issue of being unduly provocative over the choice of what to edit, given the prior interactions between them.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well before I head off to bed I just want to say that everyone can walk away now, RO has been warned the discussion result at the WP:RS noticeboard will benefit the article either way and everyone can go on their ways with RO working on other articles. Or, this can be dragged into a huge mess involving the usual sides of editors and another long drawn out drama filled battle. I for one, prefer the former. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What a pity that you didn't pitch in with such wise advice earlier Knowledgekid87. It's pretty obvious to all rational observers that you and your friends just love trolling for trouble. My advice to you is beware that you don't eventually find it. Giano (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've done nothing wrong here. I asked for advice, he said look at Donner Party, so I did. And aside from an obvious lack of attribution and some ridiculously overly detailed sections, I noticed that the Rarick book isn't purely a historical account. Which is exactly what SlimVirgin told me about a book I used. ddstretch, it's easy to say "stay away from Eric", but several of his friends have been following me around for weeks, confronting my work attacking me personally. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You think you have done nothing wrong in the obvious light of posting material on Eric Corbett's talk page like this:

  • "(EC) Honestly, I feel sorry for you. It must be an unpleasant existence for a grown man to consistently act so immature and mean-spirited. You've bought into your own Wiki-myth, which is based in reality but greatly exaggerated. If you are really so great, why won't a publisher pay you to write something? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"
  • "You seem to resent Wikipedia so much that I assumed you were unemployed, because if you were being paid to write stuff like Bile Beans, I would think you'd do that versus giving away your work for free. I'll bet that if you wrote that article under a new account that nobody knew was you, you'd be surprised and disappointed at the reception you might receive from the same people who praise your work now. "Eric Corbett" is a Wiki-brand, but in a blind test I'm not convinced you'd get the same level of support. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"
  • "The attacks are far too petty to have validity, that's why I feel sorry for him. Adults behaving like immature teenagers is pathetic and sad. And no happy person would act this terrible on a regular basis. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"

Furthermore, you have subsequently been warned not to be insulting on another editor's talk page (see below). inally, given that you previously did the same thing here and acknowleged it was a mistake here, but have not done so in this case, I am sure that your behaviour is disruptibve to wikipedia. Given that many people have objected, also, to the issues raised on Donner Party, all the more so. To prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, I am blocking you for two weeks. I suggest that any requests for an ublock admit your disruptive and bad behaviour, and that you should not be unblocked until you give an undertaking to behave better.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Drmies. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

February 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   DDStretch  (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(copied from relevant Donner Party section, above)

You think you have done nothing wrong in the obvious light of posting material on Eric Corbett's talk page like this:

  • "(EC) Honestly, I feel sorry for you. It must be an unpleasant existence for a grown man to consistently act so immature and mean-spirited. You've bought into your own Wiki-myth, which is based in reality but greatly exaggerated. If you are really so great, why won't a publisher pay you to write something? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"
  • "You seem to resent Wikipedia so much that I assumed you were unemployed, because if you were being paid to write stuff like Bile Beans, I would think you'd do that versus giving away your work for free. I'll bet that if you wrote that article under a new account that nobody knew was you, you'd be surprised and disappointed at the reception you might receive from the same people who praise your work now. "Eric Corbett" is a Wiki-brand, but in a blind test I'm not convinced you'd get the same level of support. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"
  • "The attacks are far too petty to have validity, that's why I feel sorry for him. Adults behaving like immature teenagers is pathetic and sad. And no happy person would act this terrible on a regular basis. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"

Furthermore, you have subsequently been warned not to be insulting on another editor's talk page (see below). inally, given that you previously did the same thing here and acknowleged it was a mistake here, but have not done so in this case, I am sure that your behaviour is disruptibve to wikipedia. Given that many people have objected, also, to the issues raised on Donner Party, all the more so. To prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, I am blocking you for two weeks. I suggest that any requests for an ublock admit your disruptive and bad behaviour, and that you should not be unblocked until you give an undertaking to behave better.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rationalobserver (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I won't comment at Drmies or Eric Corbett's talk page ever again, nor will I even mention them in passing. The accusations last week got me frazzled, and my judgment was poor, but that's not an excuse as I am responsible for my own actions. I want to be a constructive member of this community, and although I've made my share of mistakes, I am willing to learn from them. If you unblock me I promise to not repeat the negative and disruptive behaviors that got me blocked. I would also like to add that, while I did deserve a block, I think two weeks is excessive for my first behavioral block. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

A two week block doesn't seem necessary here. But mind you that I, as well as my fellow admins, will hold you to your promises here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Coffee. Don't worry; I've learned my lesson! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Rationalobserver, I have reinstated the block notice and the blocking admin's comment. I'm pretty sure that you are not permitted to remove that while the block is in place. If I am wrong then I apologise. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I removed it by accident. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Considering your unblock

As I'm getting lit up to some degree for accepting your unblock request... I wanted to formally warn you that if any (and I mean any) type of disruptive behavior comes from you again, you will be blocked by me personally for 6 months. I'll be keeping an eye on you, so I hope you truly hold to your promise to edit in accordance with our policies. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I accept that, Coffee. No problem; you don't have to worry about me. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deathstroke

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deathstroke. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rationalobserver/Archive_2&oldid=1143255519"