User talk:Rationalobserver

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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
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) [reply]

Shortcuts

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
HouseBlaster	90	5	1	95	00:50, 23 June 2024	3 days, 17 hours	yes	report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

Last updated by ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} at 06:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access

News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Wikipedia?

In the media: Is there life on Mars?

Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road?

Traffic report: Another week

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perovskia atriplicifolia

Yikes. My apologies for the sudden disappearance. Had some non-project crises to attend to. I've got the notes here for the rest of my revisions; let me try to get them settled today. Again, really sorry about that. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, but I'd really love to re-nom it this week. Do you think that's a realistic goal? RO^(talk) 15:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Fiddling with the cultivation subsections now, then I'll propose a lead rewrite. After that, it's just copyediting and squaring out the details of any areas where we disagree about how to handle the text, and its on to FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sounds good! RO^(talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're up! I've restructured the article, cleaned up the text, pared back the cultivation section a little bit in light of the "how to" tone complaints it got at the first FAC, and have fiddled around with the image placement, captions, and alt text such that I think they're all good to go against the standard. The lead has been rewritten as a strict summary of the text, with no statements that require attribution (and no attribution separate from the article itself), per the current consensus standard on FA-level leads. At least right now, consecutive references are all in numerical order (my personal least-favorite FAC requirement), but I'll check that again once you're done copyediting. In what's probably my most contentious change, I've cut the Gallery because I don't think it meets the criteria for gallery inclusion at WP:IG; they're all available via the Commons media link in any case. As a contrasting note, what would be totally acceptable as a gallery would be contrast images of the various cultivars, but that's not a requirement for FAC, and not happening in short-order anyway. Regardless, my two cents there. I'm sure there are wording tweaks to be made; I'm not the best polished-prose writer on the project. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome, Squeamish. I'll get right to it, and maybe we can co-nom it later today! RO^(talk) 20:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how things go. My availability for the rest of this editing-day may be spotty, but worst-case, I think we can get this sucker to FAC2 tomorrow. I don't foresee much in the way of trouble there this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my post at your talk? I think we can nom today, but if you'd rather wait to tomorrow that's fine by me. RO^(talk) 21:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've played passing-ships with some comments. In any case, feel free to launch the FAC2. This one should go more smoothly! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and well done

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work in getting Chetro Ketl to FA quality! As a fellow editor of archaeological topics it is much appreciated! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! It was a labor of love that I worked on for the better part of five months. I was deeply moved by the magic that is Chaco many, many years ago, and I'm honored to have been able to put together a "report" on this very important great house. RO^(talk) 14:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No precious from Gerda, wonder why ;-) Congrats on the TFA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It just was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dr. B! RO^(talk) 15:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KK87! I sure worked my but off on that one. Wow! RO^(talk) 19:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, RO. My heartiest congratulations on Chetro Ketl TFA! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What delay? It just came off the main page and hour ago. Thanks for stopping by! RO^(talk) 01:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The delay in me taking to congratulate you. Should have done so earlier.

— Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Ssven. Thanks for stopping by! RO^(talk) 19:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source request

Hi, regarding this request: I removed it, as we generally use this box for nominations that are nearing conclusion and where a source and/or image review is an impediment to the article being actioned further. I understand that you may be anxious to get the source review out of the way, but as every nomination needs a source review, I'm sure you can understand that we'd like to limit the scope of specific requests on WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but last time it took me another two weeks to get a source review completed after having something like 10 supports at the Chetro Ketl FAC (today's TFA, BTW). I don't mind waiting longer, but does it really have to add another week or more to each FAC? Can I ask someone at their talk page instead? RO^(talk) 20:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are also source reviews and source reviews. Chetro Ketl, as I recall, was your first FAC, and common practice is to take first-run FA sourcing through an extra degree of scrutiny (sadly, sometimes that's proven necessary). However, those are slow, because... well, to be frank, because no one likes doing them. For Perovskia atriplicifolia, this is neither of our first rodeos. Besides, biology articles attract the attention of some of the FAC big guns. Basically: don't worry, the necessary bits will happen as they need to. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sounds good, Squeamish! RO^(talk) 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much echoing what Squeamish Ossifrage said. I wish it didn't have to be this way—I'd love it if regular reviewers would just bake a source review into their other stuff—but a lot of times we end up asking at the end and that's just how it is for the time being. You might ask one of your reviewers to add a source review directly. :) --Laser brain (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life's too short

...no hard feelings. I come diff-less as I can't be bothered to drag it all up again. Nice work on Chetro Ketl by the way. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's so very big of you, Cassianto. Thank you so much for this! I want you to know that I also admire your work, and I think you're one of our very best talents. You made my day! RO^(talk) 19:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell them over at Wikipedocracy will you. I have a fucking reputation to uphold! ;) Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry! Your "secret" is safe with me and my 70+ talk page stalkers. And for the record, feel free to use profanity at my page anytime, providing it's not fucking directed at me of course! RO^(talk) 19:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to watch out for potty language you know, look how much trouble Edmund Blackadder got into when he said "I mean milk, bloody milk" to the Witchsmeller Pursuivant. Anyway, yes I think things have got a bit giddy and out of hand and I'll happily admit I was involved in some of that, so sorry again, no hard feelings etc etc and well done with Chetro Ketl by the way - good to see some more architecture articles coming out of the woordwork. And I have been headhunted, if that's the right word, to join Wikipediocracy for about 2 years but I just can't be arsed with yet another forum registration so I'll just carry on chipping in with my occasional "attaboys" on the blog which is excellent, particularly the "too much porn on Commons" stuff and anything that reinforces my long-held view that Jimbo is only really interested in preserving and promoting one thing - himself .... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the public apology, Ritchie. There's no hard feelings on my end. We all make mistakes, but, sadly, having the maturity to own up to it is not as common as the mistakes themselves. RO^(talk) 19:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Bottom

Talk page comment

Hey, RO,
Are you responsible for this edit (and others) that were just put on my talk page? Even if they are not you, you should be aware of them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's not me, but it's probably related to the sexual harassment I've been receiving from IPs: ([1]); ([2]). RO^(talk) 21:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked its location first, then I could have seen it wasn't you as it located to Edinburgh, Great Britain. It had an odd mix of edits though, about you and an AfD that another editor had been complaining about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm in the US. Sometimes this place is not what I expected it to be. RO^(talk) 21:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]