User talk:Rationalobserver

Hello, Rationalobserver, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: xx (album)

I've made some revisions and replies in response to your review at the FAC you recently made. Dan56 (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Interlacing comment

Just a word of warning. When we exchanged comments on the talk page of Plagiarism, on one occasion you placed your comments indented within mine. I come from a background of using internet news groups way back when, and that is the usual way such comments are constructed. A lot of editors on Wikipedia have never used news groups and dislike people inserting comments within theirs, so if you do it the muppets may jump up and down and insist that you comments are placed under theirs. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I appreciate the advice. I didn't realize I had done that, so feel free to correct me if I do it again. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Garbage RfC

@Rationalobserver: Hi, I would appreciate your input on this disputed matter. --Lpdte77 (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I find genre disputes to be among the project's biggest time sinks, and I'd rather not expend any energy on them. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and I completely agree. --Lpdte77 (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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) 00:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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) 00:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing conversions on talk pages

Please read the guidance for closing RfCs WP:RFC#Ending RfCs and more specifically the information at the top of the close templates such as {{archive top}} which says:

"When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at"

Unlike WP:ANI, it is not usual to close discussions on article talk pages. Usually unless, there is a good reason to do so (such as the section is part of a process such as WP:RM or and RfC, or were set up as an informal poll (in which case {{poll top}} is used)); sections are left open for others to comment if they wish to. This is completely consistent with Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration which starts "Before starting a new discussion ensure there is not already an existing section on the same topic."

-- PBS (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PBS. I appreciate the advice on protocol, as there are so many things to learn! I hope I haven't messed anything up! Rationalobserver (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:ANI. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A civil discussion about our civility policy does not need a posting full of personal attacks ("misogynist"), especially when they are not backed up with any evidence. Please don't do that again. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's awfully nice of you to protect Eric from incivility, as we all know how unerringly polite he is to others, but what about Jimbo? I see this comment: "Jimbo is unfit to to be the public face of Wikikipedia", as a personal attack. Don't you? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds far too much like my children's "well he did it first". Seriously though, accusing Eric of being abusive is one thing, but if you're going to accuse someone of misogyny, you really, really, need to be backing that up with hard diffs and evidence. Judging by the number of female editors that Eric works quite happily with on his articles and talkpage, I think your claim is ... unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a double standard though, as Eric's comment toward Jimbo is certainly a personal attack. Nonetheless, I'll be more careful about the m-word, as maybe I've misjudged him. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that it was wise to strike that comment for the sake of calming down a big drama, but the diffs are not hard to find.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have re-instated Black Kite's removal of your comment; I consider "He drives females away, and he drives new editors away. He is toxic and immature" a personal attack, especially as you provide no proof to back it up. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal and stricken the remaining uncivil comments, but I hope the irony is not lost here that you are defending Eric Corbett against incivility. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Personal attacks are removed, not simply struck through - you are bordering on edit warring, I suggest you stop. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• For clarification, your position is that calling someone an "idiot" or a "cunt" is acceptable, but calling someone a misogynist is not? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Is dismissing 49 featured articles as "allegedly" good material acceptable to the editors here who produce most of the great articles here for free either?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I'm not dismissing his work, though it looks to me that most of his effort has gone into castles and bogs and pixies and stuff that I would never read anyway. Are you suggesting that all one needs to do is write 50 FAs to earn "God powers" that can be used to abuse and demean? Are the other prolific writers of FAs also given free-reign to abuse? Eric seems (Personal attack removed), so I really don't care that he's allegedly a good editor. If good editors are that rare here, it might have something to do with the hostile environment that he contributes to. When Wikipedia protects one editor at the expense of all the others it has failed as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed a personal attack and ideally one should be a bit careful about discussing users at pages where they do not participate themselves. Iselilja (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you edited under another account?

Hello, Rationalobserver, it's difficult to believe you're a new user. For one thing, you have jumped feet first into hotspot areas, where you seem set on being as inflammatory as possible. You have 50% edits to Wikipedia space, 30% to Wikipedia talk, and 3.4% to article space according to this tool. Did you use to edit under another account? Would you mind telling me which? Bishonen | talk 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, I first edited Wikipedia about 10 years ago as an IP, and more recently I had created an account that I subsequently retired because I made the mistake of using my real name as the account name, so I guess the answer to your first question is yes, I edited Wikipedia quite a bit before I made this account two months ago. If you don't mind I'll refrain from outing myself by answering the second question. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Was your previous account subject to any sanctions? --John (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem, John, I understand why "newer" users with prior experience might be viewed with suspicion, but I would also like to know at what point do the accusations become inappropriate, or even personal attacks. I thought Wikipedia encouraged IPs to make an account, which I agree with, but to then accuse them of being socks because they aren't a complete Wikinoob doesn't seem right to me. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a sockpuppet

Per WP:VALIDALT:

• Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. These accounts are not sockpuppets.
• A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.

Per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY:

• Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts.
• Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny.

Check the logs. I notified ArbCom long ago, and was CheckUser'd. I've also been "outed" and subject to attack pages by a group of cyber attackers, so I've been through Oversight too.

Here's the bottom line: I'm not a sockpuppet.

Do you need any further information? Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't bring the drama from AN/I to my talk page. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No sweat. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP: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) 00:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Eric

I see nothing to be gained by further discussion of Eric Corbett in any "noisy" forum, either the noticeboards, where he has an entourage, or at Jimbo's talk page, where his entourage is currently supporting him. Since Jimbo no longer uses his reserved power to ban users, and since the "reforms" that have been proposed do not seem feasible, the question is whether to go to the ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'll stop commenting for the reasons you gave above. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this is right, you have the evidence needed I would take it to Arbcom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of it, as surely there are others who are more respected; they should do it, not me. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)