Jump to content

User talk:Rationalobserver/Archive 4

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

Please comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back =)

Welcome back to editing! Try to steer clear of Victoria and Montana and you are all set, I would support an I-ban here. Hope for the best!

Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to also add that its good to see you back trying to get more articles up to GA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, KK87! It's really great to be back, and don't worry; I'll do my very best to stay away from M and V, and hopefully they will voluntarily do the same for me, and there won't be any need for a formal IB between us. I've learned my lesson, and all I want to do is create content sans the drama! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Again I would stay away from Montana as she still thinks you are a sock of someone. Im not saying stop editing Irabata but is there another Indian Chief you could move to so you could get out of the same editing room? Just my advice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
FTR, I have never edited a single article that Montanabw had edited first ([1]), so why would you think she would leave me alone if I edited somewhere else? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Because it would show that she is following you which is under WP:HOUNDING and considered WP:HARASSMENT it is then worth a mention. The bottom line is you two shouldn't be editing together, it wont be forever but the dust is still settling here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a mistake to be focusing on other editors and who you need to avoid. Work on projects you care about, write brilliant articles, enjoy editing, don't concern yourself with people you've had conflict with. Focus on what's important which is your contributions to the project. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this too but just be careful here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back, RO! Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Editor Liz has the best motto: Contribute, let go. . Buster Seven Talk 15:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That's damn good advice! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain that this comment will be deleted immediately from this talk page, but I must note, for the record, that RO did post at WT:IPNA where I am a member: here. Which is how I wound up at Irataba. Montanabw(talk) 00:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but that wasn't really what I said. I said I have never edited one article that you had edited first, and that much is also true. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it really impossible to occasionally cross paths with other editors and have it not lead to feuding? We need to move past keeping score. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Liz, my point was less about keeping score and more about the fact that I am already doing everything I possibly can to avoid Montanabw. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you back. You seem to be doing well so far. Hope things continue in this direction. ekips39❦talk 03:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ty, Ekips39! It's good to be back! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimi Hendrix. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Please comment on Talk:The Federalist (website)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Federalist (website). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round. To

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Please comment on Help talk:CS1 errors

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:CS1 errors. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Huérfano Mountain

Hi, I'm Ormr2014. Rationalobserver, thanks for creating Huérfano Mountain!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Ormr2014 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes

Here's a somewhat broader point that follows from my reading of the Chetro Ketl article. You might want to consider {{efn}} as an option for the simple tyoe of footnotes as appear there. It is a relatively new template and very easy to use. I'm not saying you should change the article, merely letting you know that efn exists. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush! I'm always looking for easier and/or better ways to do things. I appreciate the advice! RO(talk) 20:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that's a cleaner and easier markup ([2]). Thanks for sharing this with me! RO(talk) 21:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The "authorlink" parameter of {{citation}}, {{cite book}} etc is also a nice tweak. You could use it for Fagan and any others who have articles. eg: Fagan, Brian (2005). Chaco Canyon: Archaeologists Explore the Lives of an Ancient Society. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517043-6.
Personally, I prefer a refs section that looks like the one at William Beach Thomas and I'm not sure why you are using the |ref=harv thing ... but each to their own. I have no idea whether it would affect things at WP:FAC: although I doubt it would matter, the Beach Thomas one got through ok. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I basically just do everything I can to avoid using too many of these <ref></ref>, because they reek havoc on my eyes. Is there a way that I can retain the refs list format but simplify the citation markup? RO(talk) 21:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you've already done that by using {{sfn}}. However, I cannot recall having to use the ref=harv thing with that template, except in one or two extremely unusual situations. Maybe just quickly remove a couple, preview the article and test the link-through from superscripted citation number --> reflist entry --> bibliography entry. It should work. I'll do it for you if you want. - Sitush (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
When I removed ref=harv it creates harv errors. RO(talk) 21:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I see that it worked when you changed cite book to citation, but what do I do with ones that are named, like ref={{harvid|Lekson|1983a}}? Also, will I still be able to bundle cites using your method? RO(talk) 22:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not even sure why you are using those, or the bundling. They're citing big page ranges, which I know we do for articles but not for books, and bundling always strikes me as plain unnecessary. It's late here and I need my sleep. I'll take a look tomorrow, maybe copy/pasting a small part of the article to my sandbox for demo purposes. - Sitush (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at what was done in a couple other articles and copied it. Thanks for all your great advice today. See you tomorrow! RO(talk) 22:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Step through the edits at User:Sitush/sandbox. Use what you want, bin what you want. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a much cleaner style, so I've adopted it. Thanks a million for the help and advice! RO(talk) 16:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I am going to delete the sandbox stuff now. This, btw, is because Dougweller and I frequently cross paths & theirs is one of the near-3000 pages on my watchlist - just a coincidence that I saw it. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Sitush, sorry to be a bother, but I tried to use this system at a stub I created, Huérfano Mountain, but I can't figure out why it's showing harv errors. If you have a minute, would you please take a quick look? RO(talk) 20:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Now I feel silly ([3]). Thanks for that! RO(talk) 20:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Re: Report

Page 1 of the PDF says it was done by the National Park Service, so the copyright is {{PD-USGov-NPS}}. Anything that the federal government creates is automatically in the public domain because it was created by a US government employee. We hope (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you think File:Chetro Ketl RS.png is PD? RO(talk) 00:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at page 383 of the PDF and you'll see a photo by Stephen Lekson, who was working for the National Park Service; he's the one who drew the map. :-) We hope (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:AMNH files

It depends-anything before 1923 is PD regardless of what anyone might claim. Other papers might not either be copyrighted or may not have been renewed. If you tell me which ones on the list you're interested in, I can run a copyright check on them. We hope (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer! I was wondering if all the papers produced by the American Museum of Natural History are by nature PD-GOV, but I guess it's situational. If I find a specific one that I need confirmation on I'll ask again. Thanks, We Hope! RO(talk) 18:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a US government institution, but a privately funded one like the Smithsonian. It's sometimes hard to distinguish what belongs to the government and what doesn't; for example, the USO works with service people and their families but is a privately funded organization. We hope (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was wondering. Thanks for the information. RO(talk) 18:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Re: Ah-oochy Kah-mah

There may be more photos of him at LOC if you want to take a look. Some of these photos are hard to locate there for some reason; you just have to keep looking because some aren't described very well. The ones taken by Carlo Gentile fall into that category. His story would probably be an interesting one since he traveled the west taking photos of various tribes. We hope (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Freddie Gray

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Freddie Gray. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Bluewater_Irataba.jpg

How about this for the article?
Nice image! I put it in the legacy section ([4]). RO(talk) 16:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I am going to the CRIT museum today, maybe I'll find something else that will be interesting.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
How cool. Have fun! RO(talk) 16:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You are mentioned in the thread here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • RationalObserver, you are not mentioned anywhere in that ANI thread; a couple of diffs of KK's from old dramaboard threads about you are there, but it has nothing to do with you. You've been doing an excellent job of avoiding drama recently; I can't tell you what to do, but if you want my advice anyway, please don't chime in there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
For your hard work and patience in promoting Irataba to FA! Well done! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
You've shown amazing resilience and determination in the work you've done to get Irataba to FA. That has been impressive to watch. Thanks. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Well done from me too! A fine piece of work indeed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Visual Collaborative

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Visual Collaborative. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Joyce

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Joyce. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Help with Rep. Tom Graves?

Hi RationalObserver, I found you on a list of active WP:US participating editors. I'm hoping you might have the time to help out with an issue on the Tom Graves article. First you should know: I am an external consultant to Rep. Graves, aiming to fix some problems with the entry. Because of my financial WP:COI I have not and will not make direct edits, but am working to gain consensus for specific changes.

I had recently been working with an editor to revise and update a section covering a bad real estate deal involving Rep. Graves, for reasons explained on the Graves Talk page. Unfortunately, just as I had proposed a specific suggestion, this editor went off-wiki, and I haven't found anyone else to help. If you have a few minutes to consider it, it's all self-contained within that conversation. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my use of scripts qualifies me to comment there, but maybe I misunderstood something about your request. If you want to get input from a larger group of editors the best thing to do is start a WP:RFC. RO(talk) 18:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, I'd absentmindedly gone to WP:US rather than WP:USC (i.e. U.S. Congress). Thanks for the suggestion, although I think RfC is too soon. The issue is not a matter of disagreement (at least not so far) but rather it's one of not enough editor attention to the page. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 11:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

PR request

Yes, I'll take a look, but it won't be for a day or two because of RL commitments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Aweseome! Thanks, Jimfbleak. RO(talk) 15:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Please comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zeitgeist (film series). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl

It's looking really good. Did you notice I had tweaked some of your photos slightly (enhanced levels)? I should have mentioned it before. It's an astounding thing which I had never heard of, despite having lived in California for five years. Maybe one day I will return to the US and take a road trip to see this, if there is anything left to see by then. Thanks for your work on the article. --John (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a labor of love. Thanks for helping me with the prose, and your image enhancements look great. The beauty of taking a trip to Chaco is that there's lots more to see in that region if you have a few days to visit. If you can swing it, a week is even better. Thanks for stopping by! RO(talk) 23:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikidata

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Red link. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Please comment on Talk:List of Murder, She Wrote episodes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Murder, She Wrote episodes. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mesa Verde National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Motif. 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) 09:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SEMA

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SEMA. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please

Don't ask me to comment on your articles again RO. It is simply absurd that you would use such an amount of energy on arguing against a minor point about how to organize the argument, based on skimpy knowledge of the context (for example you clearly dont understand the complexity of the term Toltec, used in many different meanings in different contexts such as history vs. archelogy). And that you would expect us to accept Lekson's arguments by relay in your own tendentious interpretation is completely ridiculous. He has published enough on this to make whatever he writes in an email to you entirely irrelevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't ask you to comment at the Chetro Ketl PR. You did so on your own accord. I only asked you to revisit after starting your review. Lekson thinks you are misguided, and of course I agree with him. To be clear though, you are arguing with an archeology PhD of 27 years; are you an archeologist, because I thought you were a linguist? RO(talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
If you have an archeology PhD in addition to the other qualifications you pull out of your magicians hat whenever you need to support some argument then I Santa Claus. With your previously demonstrated inability to distinguish between childrens fiction and reliable sources any PhD you have would have to be one from a diploma mill. And the fact that you claim that "Lekson thinks I am misguided" does not make it so. He is clearly responding to your distorted report of what I am actually saying. As for my own credentials, I am a linguistic anthropologist, I have studied Mesoamerican history the past 18 years and have an MA degree in Mesoamerican cultural studies from the University of Copenhagen where I have also taught introduction to Mesoamerican archaeology to undergraduates, most of whom were a lot better informed than you seem to be.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I was talking about Lekson's degree, not mine, but you are now delving into personal attacks. Like I said, I sent him the diff of your comments, and he said "I'm not sure I get the point of the criticism ... Maybe get rid of Di Peso/Vivian? He's not adding anything to what Ferdon said, and that sentence introduced Tula, which is a bit of a red herring; get rid of 'Tula, Hidalgo' in the last sentence, too. There were colonnades all over Mesoamerica in the PostClassic." So you want more Tula, and he wants less, but somehow he agrees with you and not me. Weird. Please stay off my talk if you can't discuss this without hurling ad hominems at me. RO(talk) 17:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk page stalkers will find the extended discussion illuminating. RO(talk) 20:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Empire State Building

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Empire State Building. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Please comment on Talk:Sailor Moon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sailor Moon. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi RO. Now the dust has settled on the Maya civilization FAC, I just wanted to say many thanks for taking the time to look at the article, and for supporting its promotion - after an epic haul it made FA at the weekend. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Great work, Simon! RO(talk) 15:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Demoscene

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Demoscene. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Menkauhor at FAC

Hello RO, this is to let you know, as you requested, that the article on Menkauhor Kaiu is now at FAC, see here. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Iry-Hor! I'll get over there to take a look later this week. RO(talk) 15:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Irataba - Take it to Talk

I apologize for my unkind words on my last post to the talk page. I didn't really mean to come across that mean. You know the feeling I hope — "heat of the moment". Your article is great! Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time reading and editing it. Handshake? --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely not my article though, it's all of ours, and Maunus and Dr. Blofeld in particular did lots of great work there to get it to this level, as did numerous other editors who helped during the PR. But sure; no hard feelings I hope. In the future though, it's considered bad form to make substantive changes to a TFA, and as Maunus told you earlier today ([5]), it's really bad form to edit war during one. It's far better to discuss things at talk first, at least while the article is on the front page, but I don't see any evidence that you've ever edited a TFA or an FA before, so I guess you didn't know about that. RO(talk) 21:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I have edited numerous, probably more than a dozen, FA articles in the past. My experience on FA's is that they are far easier to edit after they have been removed from the Main Page. Once out of the "spotlight", simple edits such as those I normally do aren't scrutinized so closely. Although, today with Irataba, I must admit I was extra bold—far bolder than I usually get with FAs. I am usually contented by correcting a typo or two. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Precious

Irataba
Thank you for quality article Irataba for project Indigenous peoples of North America, in collaboration, for reviewing, for realizing that the same word can be both joking and insulting, for a clear user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you know that I looked for an article to suggest for the Main page, found Irataba, and only then saw that it was already scheduled? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, great minds think alike (jk)! Thanks for this, Gerda Arendt! RO(talk) 15:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you ;) - Simply "Gerda" is fine with me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry about that, Gerda. RO(talk) 15:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry? - Just a friendly invitation to less formality ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, good. Thanks for stopping by my talk page and giving me the Precious award! RO(talk) 15:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Not knowing about your former user name, I could not check if you received a "repeat", nor check if you supported a ban (which disqualified all but one so far), but then: I didn't yet find a single women among them --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Nah, my previous account never got any accolades. Does this mean I am the first woman to receive the Precious Award? RO(talk) 16:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Read the list, the first woman (by me - but the prize was given from 2007) was #1 Rosiestep, the first man minutes later #2 User:Dr. Blofeld. I was probably unclear: I didn't find a single woman among those supporting the ban which disqualifies in my eyes, see? - It might be interesting to find out if the percentage of women among the recipients of Precious is higher than that of editors, but I don't care much about stats, nor if a good editor is male or female, and for some I really don't know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Am I understanding this correctly? Was there an effort to ban the Precious Award, or are you taking about all bans in general, or a different specific ban? RO(talk) 16:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
There was a specific ban, as you will see if click on "see?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well I've never supported any Wikibans of any kind. RO(talk) 16:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I might not be the first woman to win the Precious Award (thank goodness), but I think Irataba might be the first Native American leader to be a Wikipedia TFA! RO(talk) 01:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on the TFA and the Precious!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It was really nice working with you on this topic, Dr.B! Thanks for all the encouragement. RO(talk) 15:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Your GA nomination of Mesa Verde National Park

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mesa Verde National Park 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:I'm Coming Out

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:I'm Coming Out. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Amazing work on getting Chetro Ketl up to FA status!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree! In the queue to be suggested for TFA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Dr. B and Gerda! It looks like we haven't had anything Chaco-related on the main page since Chaco Culture National Historical Park was on in 2009. RO(talk) 18:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mesa Verde National Park

I have passed the article for GA and listed it under Wikipedia:Good articles/History#Archaeology and archaeologists. I am unsure if this is the right sub-heading to list it under, and if you think there is a more suitable one, by all means move it. The article is a fine piece of work, and in my view thoroughly merits its promotion. My congratulations. Tim riley talk 14:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim! I think that's a good category, but if I find a more appropriate one I'll move it on over. RO(talk) 16:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mesa Verde National Park

The article Mesa Verde National Park you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mesa Verde National Park 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. All good memories, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Have you been there, Gerda? RO(talk) 16:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's memories, not dreams ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I swapped a few images, revert if you don't like it. I learned to avoid left, especially under a header, even more so if the next header gets to the right of the image. Alternating right and left is nice,but no holy scriptures ;) - I might want to see an image of Cliffs Palace on top instead of the landscape which only people knowing Spanish recognize as a green table. - Article looks like a potential FA to me. Remember those ladders ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits and advice. Looks better to me too. We used to have Cliff Palace in the infobox, but I thought it was too specific, so I put the image of the mesa in there. I'll think on that one a bit. Speaking of ladders, did you climb the 32-footer into Balcony House? RO(talk) 17:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalidas (film)/archive1

Thanks for thanking me regarding Chetro Ketl and congratulations on getting the article to FA. The article on the first talking picture in Tamil, Kalidas, is at FAC (nominated by Kailash29792). Feel free to leave comments at its FAC page. Thank you. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I will. Thanks for the invite! RO(talk) 15:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Spaced em-dashes

Hi, please don't space em-dashes, as you did here. If the dash should be spaced, it needs to be an en-dash; if the dash needs to be an em-dash, it cannot be spaced. See MOS:DASH. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. The script did that, but I should have double checked it, as I am familiar with the conventions relating to en and em dashes. RO(talk) 19:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Perovskia atriplicifolia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Perovskia atriplicifolia 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Perovskia atriplicifolia

The article Perovskia atriplicifolia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Perovskia atriplicifolia 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fire Emblem Fates

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fire Emblem Fates. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Template:Did you know nominations/Rock 'N' Roll Comics

Shall I tag that page for deletion? I checked both pages, and you might be on to something. --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes please. I don't think this was a new expansion so much as a farming out of material from the parent article. Sorry about that, but I'm new to DYK. RO(talk) 18:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Inform for guidance

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Inform for guidance. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

B. V. Sreekantan

THanks mate, for the good efforts. I have already started working on it. Will keep you posted. Thanks once again!!--jojo@nthony (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome! RO(talk) 15:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I have done a bit on the article, please go through it at your convenience and advise comments. I refrained from elaborating on the awards fearing it may be construed as promotion.--jojo@nthony (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll take another look a little bit later today and probably make a few edits there myself. RO(talk) 16:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!--jojo@nthony (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hope I am not intrusive and I hope, you would have some more time to look into the article again.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

DYK for Perovskia atriplicifolia

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lovely, thank you! I like the image so much that I took it to the top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Your first DYK? Hard to believe after a featured article appeared already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yup, first DYK. Thanks for the massive compliment, Gerda! RO(talk) 15:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Loham - Peer review

Surprisingly the major contributors are from anonymous random IP addresses. So there is no one to ask for help other than the administrators. And that is a great effort you have taken to read the entire article. Thanks for that. It will be very helpful if you could polish the article when time allows or by recommending more peer reviewers to take a look at the page. Thank You for you great support. --Charles Turing (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Perovskia atriplicifolia

So, I wanted to step away from the FAC arena and over to your Talk to, well, talk about this article. In my opinion, the constellation articles get off easy, in part because constellations are just social constructs; they're not real things, so there's a lot less of the scientific meat to dig into. After all, the notable stars that make up constellations have their own articles, and so on. Species articles, well... I had planned to compete with Sasata for articles on fungal species, got exactly one to FA, and have moved on to easier things like silent films!

But I digress, let's talk Perovskia atriplicifolia. The biggest things you're missing here are really sources discussing the non-cultivated aspects of the plant. And that's not surprising. Since this is an economically important ornamental, information about its cultivations swamps the botanical aspects of a plant growing wild in far off places. I have some sources that can help. I've got two excellent articles on deck about phylogenetics; in fact, there's some things to be said on the topic, since it's pretty clear that Perovskia is a sister taxon to some, but not all of Salvia, and the latter is a polyphyletic mess! I can try to dig up some sourcing for the native ecology and missing aspects of the description (seeds, notably) also, but that's not at hand yet as I type this. On the other hand, I've got plenty of phytochemistry stuff more recent than 1999. Sometimes its weird what is easier to find than others.

I don't know how much of a hand you'd like me to have in this. The last thing I want to do is to hijack an article you've worked very diligently on assembling. At your option, I can hand you some sources as I come across them, and let you integrate ... all the way up to setting up a sandbox where we can give a go at cooperate article improvement. I hang around FAC a lot because I want our best articles to be really superb, but I don't want to make good editors feel frustrated, either. Let me know how you'd like me to help. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

First off, isn't the issue of phylogenetics better suited for the Perovskia article? If not, will it have to be repeated in both places? More to the point, I only took this up because I have a passing interest in plants, and I thought they might be less taxing and more enjoyable than other topics I've worked on. There's a whole slew of plant articles that I planned to take a nice picture for and bring to FAC. But I also wanted to bring every great house in Chaco Canyon up to FAC, which I just can't/won't do if they take anywhere near the five months I put into Chetro Ketl. I also wanted to bring lots of Native American leaders up to FAC, but I won't be doing that either, because of the amount of work required and certain people who ran me through the ringer last time. I respect that you want FAC to be of high quality, but there isn't a book or article in the world with more detail about Perovskia atriplicifolia that I am aware of, so in essence the article is already the best one-stop source for information about this particular plant. That it doesn't have every possible point that anyone could imagine adding doesn't make it flawed enough to archive, IMO, which is where it's heading now.
Anyway, please don't read my response as overly defensive. I have tons of respect for the work you do around here, and I know your intentions are always good. Having said that, I really wish you had given me some time to address your concerns before opposing right off, as it feels a little like a hostage situation when that happens, and it taints every subsequent reviewer. Had you given me suggestions I would have taken them, but since you opposed I don't feel like jumping through hoops for an article that is fine by me as it is. Please don't worry about hijacking it either, as I've pretty much lost interest in it at this point anyway. If you think it needs lots of stuff to pass FA, then I'm sure you're right, but I won't be the person doing the work. I have to draw a line or I won't last much longer. If you want to help the article be all it can bee then please do so. I don't have ownership issues with it, or any article for that matter. I know they belong to the community and the readers, and I just want them to be good enough but still fun for me to write. I've been going pretty steady for several months now, so maybe I just need a good long break to regain perspective. I just wanted to find a neglected topic area that wouldn't burn me out with piles of detail. I mean, if we include every possible point in every article we aren't really summarizing topics; we're writing the final word on them, which I don't want to do with every article, because that will drain the fun out of it for me. Maybe I should just stick to stubs. RO(talk) 21:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Some phylogenetics will probably be duplicated, yes. It is (traditionally) included at the species level for those species directly used in the analysis. So, for example, I would leave it out of a hypothetical article on Perovskia scrophulariifolia. But, details aside, I don't want you to feel that this process is overwhelming. You did great work on Chetro Ketl, and I'd love to see similar quality treatments for the other Chaco Canyon structures. One of the nice things about developing a related set of articles is that many of the sources are applicable to more than one! That's what has kept me going with my frankly insane goal of getting all the films of J. Gordon Edwards elevated to FA status. At my current rate ... well, at my current rate, that project should be done sometime in the early 2050s. Maybe.
As far as the article at hand goes, though, I'm working on sourcing the missing material—mostly taxonomy and phylogeny stuff, collecting history, and the like, plus some phytochemistry and more details for its native ecology. I don't know how quickly I'll have it all together, but I can try to send what I find over to you as its available. Alternatively, if it doesn't look like this can be pulled off within the current FAC window, I would be more than happy to collaborate with you on it directly and then return it to FAC in a couple weeks. Just let me know what approach would make you feel best about filling out the rest of the botany stuff for this article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Since you've withdrawn the FAC, I'm going to go ahead and boldly shuffle the structure a little in the article, and start dropping in some additional sources. We've got two weeks until your relisting timer clears, but I think we can have this ready for you to go again by then! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to collaborate directly with you and co-nom it in a couple of weeks, if that sounds agreeable. I probably won't be much help to you though, but I promise to pay close attention and learn as much as I can. The bright side to this is that I really would rather collaborate anyway, as it's just too much work for me to go to FAC alone all the time. Thanks for being willing to help! RO(talk) 15:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I am certain that you'll be a lot of help. I've got a background in research and technical writing, but that means it's sometimes easy for me to make my prose read like a technical paper instead of an encyclopedia article, haha! And, frankly, you've already done a huge amount of heavy lifting about this plant in cultivation, which is way outside of my normal research range. I probably would have missed some of what you've got. But, hey, that's what collaboration is about, right? Making a better end result that we would have alone. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've at least gotten information in from the phylogenetics sources, and a bunch of additional stuff about the available cultivars. I'd still like to add to the "Uses" section with some better ethnopharmacology references and phytochemistry post-1999, but there are only so many hours in the day. At some point, this is going to need a couple rounds of solid copy-editing, too, I'm sure! At some point, I'd also like to talk image selection with you. I really like that Raton, NM pic, and am tempted to kick that up to the article to illustrate the landscaping stuff. But that leaves a pretty anemic gallery... On the other hand, some people dislike galleries. Shrug. In any case, that's probably a chat to have after we see how much real estate the article length affords us. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks awesome, Squeamish, and don't worry about the gallery. Hafspajen made a very good policy-based argument for its inclusion. I can certainly take care of the copyediting, and I'll dig around for more images on commons, but if there's a particular angle you want let me know, and I can take a few new shots. Thanks again for taking this on! Wikipedia is so much more fun when it's collaborative! RO(talk) 22:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Got caught up in real life stuff over the long weekend here in the US, but I aim to get back to sprucing this one up. I aim to take a pass through the cultivation section, mostly just to reorder some things, and include bits from the other sources I'd tripped over along the way. We'll need to rewrite the lead and check picayune stuff like reference number order, but there's no sense doing either of those until we're happy with the body contents. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rationalobserver. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/LiSA (Japanese musician, born 1987)/archive1.
Message added 13:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Mesa Verde National Park

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mammillaria spinosissima

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mammillaria spinosissima 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) 18:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mammillaria spinosissima

The article Mammillaria spinosissima 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:Mammillaria spinosissima for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mammillaria spinosissima

The article Mammillaria spinosissima you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mammillaria spinosissima 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) 20:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Mammillaria spinosissima

Sorry I didn't get back to this immediately. I overlooked the message you dropped me, and, well, clearly I've been busy. In general, I think the article's in pretty good shape for the GA level (and, hey, got the icon), although you'd want to dig up some of the first round of scholarly articles if you tried to push this to FA. However, there's one error that has crept in (it's an easy one to make...) and needs correction. "Scheer ex Salm-Dyck" is not an individual name. In botany (the zoology rules are different), an author citation like "Scheer ex Salm-Dyck" means that Scheer published a description of the plant, but that description was not considered a valid publication; Salm-Dyck published a subsequent description using the same name, based on Scheer's work, that is accepted as valid. Compounding the issue, these citations often use abbreviations for the authors' names; not all of them are intuitive. Scheer is Frederick Scheer (and sadly a redlink); Salm-Dyck is ... well, there's a reason he got an abbreviation! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. Thanks for the explanation (see fix here: ([6])! Perovskia is eligible for FAC2 as of tomorrow. Do you think we can meet that deadline? 16:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)RO(talk)
Much better! For the record, if you ever do a zoology article, the convention is exactly opposite that of botany citations (the older author comes after "ex"). Because reasons, I suppose. As for Perovskia atriplicifolia, um, maybe? I need to grab food, then tidy up some prose a little. I'll get back to you this afternoon on my thoughts. If we're not ready tomorrow, we'll definitely be ready later this week. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. That sounds great; just let me know when you're ready for a final run through, and we'll re-nom it then! RO(talk) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd like an extra day or two, I think, to give me a chance to tidy up, then hand back to you for c/e. The cultivation section is clearly not ready for FA right now, since I just hack-jobbed it into subsections. It's been a challenge. There are vanishingly few plant articles with bronze stars, and pretty much nothing that's widely cultivated as an ornamental, so we are largely blazing new ground regarding the article structure here! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Take all the time you need, and let me know when it's ready. RO(talk) 21:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For your great service to Wikipedia:Peer review. I never seen anyone so skilfully review articles before. Thank you. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ugog Nizdast! It's great to get some positive feedback. RO(talk) 17:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant

Hi Rational Observer,

Thank you again for reviewing the Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant article during its peer review. I have nominated the article for a featured article candidacy. Might you be willing to contribute to the discussion there? Any comments you might provide would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Extraordinary accumulation of points.

I've mentioned you here, I hope you don't mind.  — Calvin999 21:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't mind, as I share your frustration, but Miyagawa has said this discussion should wait, so I'll respect that and wait. RO(talk) 22:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rationalobserver. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — Calvin999 19:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

A diamond in the rough

Hi RO, Many thanks for your comments at PR for Diamonds Are Forever (novel). The article is now at FAC for further comments, should you have the time and inclination. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll be sure to stop by. RO(talk) 21:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mammillaria spinosissima
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Mammillaria spinosissima by RO.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 23:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Echinocereus reichenbachii

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Echinocereus reichenbachii 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) 21:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Echinocereus reichenbachii

The article Echinocereus reichenbachii you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Echinocereus reichenbachii 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) 14:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop

I asked nicely, but you carried on disrupting Montanabw's RfA anyway, so to forestall any further disruption I have no choice but to block you for 48 hours in the hope the conversation will then be sufficiently quelled. As ever, you may appeal this block via the usual channels, which I assume given your experience you are aware of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Monatanabw your friend? Are you arbitrarily deciding that I may not participate in the RfA? Dennis Brown, is this acceptable? RO(talk) 15:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Liz, is this a legitimate block? RO(talk) 15:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC) DESiegel and GregJackP. Ritchie has blocked me for participating at the Montanabw RfA. This strikes me as an incredibly inappropriate block. RO(talk) 16:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have recommended blocking here. It should have been taken to ANI so an admin that hasn't participated can make a determination or offered other suggestions. As I've participated, I can't act here either except to opine. Note that I'm not addressing the merits, only the involved aspects. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Isn't Ritchie involved? RO(talk) 16:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If RationalObserver agrees to limit discussion to the talk page, I'll unblock. Or, if any of the people above thinks the block is not necessary to avoid disruption anywhere, I'll unblock too. Or if any admin has a good reason that this block isn't really of any use, I am happy with them unblocking without needing to contact me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You are the only person who's said I was disrupting anything, and I know you are friends with Montanabw. I suggest you undue this block and save as much face as possible. RO(talk) 16:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I've never met Montanabw, I haven't voted to support her in the RfA, and I really don't know very much at all about her, I'm afraid. I'm quite happy to unblock you once I'm happy you've calmed down and can get back to your good work at Rod Steiger. We'll get this sorted out soon enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Cool down blocks aren't given and RO was keeping her comments, by and large, to her own vote section unlike other editors who spend their time challenging other editors' votes/opinions. I agree that the appropriate place for extended commentary is the RfA talk page and I think it is not disruptive for it to continue there. Plus, no one was blocked over my RfA which was a great deal more contentious than this one! I would support an unblock. Liz Read! Talk! 16:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333, I'm going to ask nicely that you unblock RO. I do not agree with her position at the RfA (I support Montanabw becoming an admin), but to use your tools to silence someone that is opposed to her getting the bit is completely inappropriate and is a misuse of the tools. If you have to block someone, you should be blocking the people who are harassing and badgering RO for daring to speak up on an RfA in opposition to the candidate. GregJackP Boomer! 16:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd really rather not block anyone (as I think it's reasonably well known), and I on the incredibly rare occasions I have blocked it tends to get sorted out quickly because I do want to listen to what the other party has to say. I don't mind people having contrary views on RfAs, it would be a pretty boring debate if everyone agreed with each other wouldn't it? Now, if we can agree for things to be left on the talk page, then I think we can close this down. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, per consensus with Dennis, Greg and Liz I've unblocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  • There is absolutely no need for this to be left on the talk page. RO has the same right as anyone else to make her views known, and has the right to defend her views against badgering and harassment. Liz is completely on point here, RO was keeping her comments in her own section, where she was the one being harassed. Thanks for unblocking her. GregJackP Boomer! 16:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I would not have issued such a block, and I saw nothing on the RfA or its talk page that seemed to me to justify a block, although if Q11 had not been edited, I might have felt that the matter needed to be brought up at ANI, but I would not have blocked unilaterally even then. DES (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Dreadful block. Ritchie should be ashamed. Spartaz Humbug! 23:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I know late but I agree with the above, blocking someone because they disagree with your point of view isn't right. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Diffs

I'm afraid I'm going to want to see those diffs you say you have about "two different IPs that can be irrefutably connected to your account and vandalism" in regards to MontanaBW. My email is enabled, but it would really be better if you did not make accusations without actual diffs being produced. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'll get that to you in just a few minutes. I didn't want to produce diffs at the RfA, because I thought that was a mistake. Should I add them there? RO(talk) 23:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Email with diffs has been sent. RO(talk) 23:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea if it would fall afoul of WP:OUTING but making accusations without backing them up is just plain wrong. And I can't say I'm impressed with the "evidence" you sent. One incident of vandalism is from 2008 (and occurred several months after the last possibly IP edit by MBW) and that IP was never used after 2008. The other IP is from this year, but again, there is a gap in usage between something that could possibly be MBW and the vandalism. And the second IP was only in use for a year. Your wording implies that the IPs were in use over a long stretch of time - this is not the case. The first IP edits are all from 2008 or earlier (and include a number of topics that do not seem to fit with MBW's editing habits). The second IPs edits are all from 2014 to 2015 and also includes a few edits well outside MBWs editing habits. WHOIS shows that the IPs are quite likely part of a shared pool and that more than one person can access them. I'm not great at sockpuppet hunting - it would probably be best if someone well versed it this looked at the "evidence" also. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The first IP was used for 2.5 years, and the second for about 1 year. That's why I said a combined 3.5 years. If MBW is using a shared IP I'll apologize for insinuating, but it doesn't look like that to me, as many of the edits are made at 2 or 3 in the morning, when libraries and coffee shops and places like that are closed, and she already flat out denied making lots of edits with IPs, which is obviously not true. RO(talk) 23:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, the first IP also edited Empire of Man, The Jewish War, Malayala Manorama (a Malaysian newspaper), Cathedral of the Theotokos, Vilnius, Talk:Nuclear physics, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, CDATA, Mishra (Magic: The Gathering), Dominaria (another Magic the Gathering page), Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia, Pepin Garcia (CEO of a Miami cigar firm), Aang, Hainan Island incident, Rich Text Format, Tom Palmer (animator), Archduke, Talk:Rotary engine, Ovid, and XAML Browser Applications, besides subjects that MBW has shown much more interest in. The wide breadth of wildly varying topics is what leads me to believe that it's an IP that can be accessed by many different people. The second IP has many many fewer edits (less than 30) but includes Aircraft in fiction, Exploded-view drawing, Lebanon, La Costa Perdida, Template:Camper Van Beethoven, and Club Universidad Nacional (a Mexican soccer team). That's quite a varied range of interest - and most of those are again, not subjects MBW has shown much interest in. Looks like a shared IP to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
That's probably true, but she definitely used both of them to edit Wikipedia. And she used the first IP from February 2004 to at least December 2007, and made more than a hundred edits (the IP made more than two hundred). Plus, "I use a shared IP" is a simple answer that she has not yet offered. Why stall such an easy explanation? RO(talk) 00:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's probably best we don't continue with IP discussions while the RFA is going on. Too many ifs and too much drama for my liking!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: email

Yes. And while I understand why you sent that, it's probably not a good idea to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the IR. RO(talk) 16:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I second Nikkimaria's statement. Mitchumch (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Understood. RO(talk) 00:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Peace offering

I hope what you did works so you can finally put this behind you, I am still distrustful though with the partisanship issue. I went over the support opinions and saw that some saw Montana as the victim. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That RfA was a big stressor on lots of people, and a big drain on the community. Now's the time to redirect that negative energy into a positive outcome. RO(talk) 00:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I admire your optimism but after what I have been though trust is hard to come by when you have others built up on your side, an issue that was raised in the RfA. Like I said, I hope it works it will put some faith back into me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
No matter the outcome, your faith must be internally derived. Some people always think civilization is falling apart at the seams, but it's always been that way, and it's still not crumbled. RO(talk) 00:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
No I am still hopeful otherwise I wouldn't be giving Montana praise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Rational, let it go... I saw this coming you aren't talking to Montana one to one about it you are arguing with her supporters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I made my peace, and for what it's worth, I agree with the others that you need to mind your own business. You aren't suited for dispute resolution, and in fact your presence in heated discussions only makes things worse. Please stop trying to play the mediator in situations where I'm involved. Thank you. RO(talk) 18:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussing terms of peace offering

I think this thread was a bad idea, and I think this diff is an attempt to set me up, so I'm closing this discussion. RO(talk) 21:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Montanabw, if you want to discuss this further with me please come here, but there is no chance for an amicable conversation at your page when your friends are always so quick to defend you and attack me at every turn, thus poisoning the well and preventing any resolution from materializing. I still have hope that we can work this out, but there's things we need to discuss freely amongst ourselves. I'll leave this up here until the end of the day, when I'll be going out of town for some R&R in the Rockies. I really want to put the past aside and move forward, so I truly hope you're willing to talk this out with me. Note: if anyone else tries to chime in here they will be reverted immediately. That goes double for anyone wanting to defend me. RO(talk) 19:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I made a counteroffer there and shall repeat it here. "I propose that we simply agree to a WP:TRUCE and agree we shall henceforth each commit to follow wikipedia policy to treat one another with consideration and respect consistent with WP:AGF, with no apologies on either side. I will not demand, but I will hope you can acknowledge that while I had edited logged-out more than I realized, I was not running clandestine anon IP accounts. I will acknowledge in turn that although you did have a prior account, it appears to be a RTV and I was incorrect that you were a sock of the two other active user accounts I associated with you. Can that work?" Montanabw(talk) 19:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for stopping by, MBW. My issue with your counter is the refusal to apologize for the stalking and character assassination that lasted for several months. If you had valid concerns that I was a sock you should have gathered evidence for presentation at SPI, not tried to convince everyone I interacted with that I was a sock who should be banned without due process, which is something I assume you respect. The only proper venue for allegations of socking is SPI, and to make them all across the project is inappropriate. What do you say to that? RO(talk) 20:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
As I stated, "although you did have a prior account, it appears to be a RTV and I was incorrect that you were a sock of the two other active user accounts I associated with you." Your remaining accusations may be how you personally viewed the situation, but they are without merit. If you wish to negotiate a truce in response to my counteroffer, I shall discuss; otherwise there is no reason to continue this conversation and we shall have to simply agree to disagree. Montanabw(talk) 20:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
But saying you were incorrect is not an apology. I already know you were incorrect, and an RTV is not the same thing as a clean start anyway. Per policy, people who are courtesy vanished are expected to not return, so there is some semantic ambiguity in your counter. I.e., if I were an RTV I wrongly came back when policy says I shouldn't, which still indicates wrongdoing on my part. It also implies you were correct about me being a sock, but got the sockmaster wrong. We can agree to disagree, but are you disagreeing that it's inappropriate to spread accusations of socking around the project for months without filing an SPI? Do you agree that these accusations should only be presented at SPI, or do you disagree with that? And let's try this. Do you still think I'm a sock, because I'm finding it really difficult to understand what exactly your position is. RO(talk) 20:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I only agreed to discuss this if we could keep it good-faith, but this doesn't look like good-faith to me, it looks like you are trying to set me up, and it looks like you're canvassing admins to block me.RO(talk) 20:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You will believe whatever you want to believe; I simply have asked uninvolved individuals to monitor this situation because I'm tired of dealing with you. I am not going to engage with you any further. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm ... You pinged the admin who blocked me for socking back in December 2014 to a discussion of your ongoing accusations of socking against me here? You came here on your own volition, so please stop playing the "please protect me from meanies" card. Deja vu all over again, hey Yoggie! RO(talk) 21:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

|}

3RR

You've now reverted me four times; removing the "disputed" tag is that fourth. ([7] [8] [9] [10]) Please self-revert, put the tag back and continue the discussion on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I put it back, but I know what you're doing, and you should be ashamed of yourself. RO(talk) 17:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"I should be ashamed of myself" for what, exactly? Adding well-sourced material and then being rather miffed when those additions are wholesale-reverted? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You never edited that article until today, and this is obviously retribution for crossing one of your friends. You said Significant arguments are made that that shift did not occur for several centuries after Pueblo I; perhaps not until 1300 or later., but the last inhabitants of Mesa Verde left the area c. 1285. RO(talk) 17:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
This is absolutely not retribution for "crossing one of your friends," whoever that might be. I just visited Chaco Culture NHP and am in the midst of a multi-day visit to Mesa Verde NP; hence my interest in improving those articles. Please assume good faith. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Okay. RO(talk) 18:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I am literally totally fucking mystified as to why you think I'm "retaliating" and on behalf of whom, so please see your inbox. There's no reason we should be digging each other into a conflict here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. My bad. I'll AGf, so please accept my apologies. RO(talk) 18:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rationalobserver/Archive_4&oldid=1257941322"