Jump to content

User talk:Rationalobserver: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 300: Line 300:
:: 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. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver#top|talk]]) 21:36, 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. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver#top|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]]. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 21:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
::: Right now things are tense, I would wait a few days and revisit all of this on the [[WP:PUMP]]. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:48, 29 January 2015

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)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. 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, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. 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, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irataba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 35th parallel. 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) 09:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Orson Scott Card. 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, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You back yet?

Happy New year! =) Was just wondering about the broken wikibreak link on the top of your page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you! I left that there in case I needed it again soon, but hopefully I wont! I've been busy writing Irataba. Maybe you can take a look when you get a chance! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I will have a look, I do know that there are a-lot of good books out there about native Americans. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite surprised to find that Irataba had not yet gotten his Wikipage. I guess I'm honored to have written it! The kind folks at Northern Arizona University are sending me the Arthur Woodward piece, which should help to round-out the sourcing. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

I did that thing. Chillum 03:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chillum! Rationalobserver (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Please comment on Talk:Breitbart (website)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Breitbart (website). 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, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. 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, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Thank you!

The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
Rationalobserver, I hereby bestow upon you The Premium Reviewer Barnstar for your exceptional and comprehensive Good Article review of William Beverley. I appreciate and thank you for your guidance and patience throughout this review process. -- Caponer (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind. Thanks! It was a pleasure working with you, and I hope we can do this again sometime! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep. 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, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dabangg

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dabangg. 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, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Please comment on Talk:Bloody Saturday (photograph)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bloody Saturday (photograph). 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, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

This is me [1] writing five years ago - my opinion hasn't changed. Please click on Footnote 12; you see it takes a long time to bring about change in Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've misjudged you, as we appear to agree on this point. I hope we can find more common ground in time, as I truly dislike the fact that there are opposing factions around here. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There will always be opposing factions because, as much as WP tries to pretend to be an experiment in social engineering, it cannot do other than reflect real life. In some ways, due to the lack of face-to-face interaction, it probably amplifies the differences. The key is to discern the factions that are a net positive from those that are not. And, if you perceive yourself as being in one faction or another, to direct your attentions to change in the experiment (ie: policy etc) rather than individuals. After all, one bus always follows another. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Hi I've looked at what is going on on Sandstein's talk page and I think it may be best for you to stop your convo with EC. What I would do in your shoes would be to contact ArbCom by e-mail: see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for details. There is also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Residuum_and_enforcement which gives some brief information, as well as at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Of course it is well within your rights to disregard this advice if you feel otherwise. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wasn't sure what to do, so I went there, but I'm sure you're right that the other options are much better. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, just let it pass. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's too late now, as I already filed at AE thinking that an obvious insult is obvious. I really don't get this place, but I wish people would spent half the time reviewing articles that they currently spend bickering, myself included. I don't mind the mud on my face, if that's what this is, as my intentions were good, but if Wikipedia doesn't want the no-insult restriction enforced then who am I to disagree? I consider it a lesson learned. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right when you say it is too late but that doesn't mean you should let it get to you, just edit other articles and let it go, remove from watchlist and let the whole thing pass. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I intend to do. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look the problem with this place is that admins are loathe to intervene in these sort of situations. The reason? It become a huge time sink, with endless accusations and counter-accusations, ending up with a massive arbcom action that wastes about a million person-hours. And what is the end result? Your're back to square one, just look how EC and gang behaves. It's just that admins generally would rather do something constructive than take endless actions that don't get anywhere. It's practicalities really.
My advice to you is not to try to go too far out of your way to support other editors in these sort of situations. You'll waste loads of time, possibly be harassed, and end up wishing you'd never heard of WP. Now that might sound like poor form but that's how I see things at least. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I have learned from this situation. Thanks for the reaffirming advice! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well I feel a little bad about having this sort of attitude, there's been loads of times I feel I should have spoken up. I think it's all about intervening in the right situations, but it is difficult to say when these occur. Anyway good luck with things. --Mrjulesd (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree somewhat, not speaking up is worse and eats at you from the inside out, you just have to know when to speak up. Yeah Eric used the word "filth" to describe an editor but the difference is that only two people were in agreement and if you had made a big deal about it then it would seem like nothing. If you see an editor being ganged up upon by multiple editors then you should say something if you know it will help be it give advice or intervene the best you can, I would do the same for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can see that point of view as well. I do intervene on occasions, but possibly I should do so more. But at the same time I feel the best response at times is to back away, but at what times to do this is debatable. --Mrjulesd (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And my advice to you Mrjulesd would be to focus more on articles rather than commenting on others! I can't see where you've edited a single article in three months! What do you think we're really here for?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well User:Dr. Blofeld I've been working on help pages, if you really care. Been investigating missing pings, amongst other things. I know people don't see it as "proper editing" but I don't really care. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld, please don't come to my talk page and use your "list of reasons this editor should be ignored". I think your complete lack of objectivity makes you a good candidate that regard, and I don't appreciate your constant efforts to undermine everyone who disagrees with you. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I really don't know what you are talking about. Can you please be more specific? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sometimes you can be awarded for the small things that add up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done, but I can't imagine why they would want that to remain. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rationalobserver&oldid=644762759"