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
→‎Sorry: Stay!
EChastain (talk | contribs)
2,665 edits
→‎Sorry also: new section
Line 270: Line 270:
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | As you wander around Wikiworld keep a kind heart for those you think are hurtful to you. You will eventually see that they were <u>helpful</u> rather than hurtful. . [[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | As you wander around Wikiworld keep a kind heart for those you think are hurtful to you. You will eventually see that they were <u>helpful</u> rather than hurtful. . [[User: Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven</em>''']]<small>[[User talk:Buster7|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk</em>''']]</small> 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
|}
|}

== Sorry also ==

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

Revision as of 16:12, 21 February 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]

GA review of Zhu De

Hello Rationalobserver,

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Rosamund Pike

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

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

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

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

2nd opinion

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

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

Your GA nomination of Irataba

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

Your GA nomination of Rose-Baley Party

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

Request

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

Your GA nomination of Irataba

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

Your GA nomination of Irataba

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

Please comment on Talk:Joseph Kobzon

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

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

Your GA nomination of Rose-Baley Party

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

Your GA nomination of Rose-Baley Party

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

Please comment on Talk:Version 2.0

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

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

SPI

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

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

Quitting?

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

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive1

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

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

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

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

We're still marching along ...

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

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Clarification requested

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Sorry

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

We're all in this together

The Good Heart Barnstar The Good Heart Barnstar
As you wander around Wikiworld keep a kind heart for those you think are hurtful to you. You will eventually see that they were helpful rather than hurtful. . Buster Seven Talk 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry also

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rationalobserver&oldid=648200293"