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 321: Line 321:
:It never hurts to try. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver#top|talk]]) 22:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:It never hurts to try. [[User:Rationalobserver|Rationalobserver]] ([[User talk:Rationalobserver#top|talk]]) 22:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::True, and for a moment there I had hope things were going to work out, I had noticed him getting better as well, but still had my doubts. Anyways my advice going forward is to just steer away I mean there are plenty of helpful editors here. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 23:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::True, and for a moment there I had hope things were going to work out, I had noticed him getting better as well, but still had my doubts. Anyways my advice going forward is to just steer away I mean there are plenty of helpful editors here. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 23:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::It came back to bit you here though, you have to know that there are a circle of editors here on Wikipedia who defend each other like crazy. Your mistake was going to Drmies for help, if you look at Corbett's talkpage history you will know why. Anyways I hope you come back after all of this I cant say I blame you though if you want to call it quits. I believe you are innocent here, you asked for help on Eric's talkpage and while Eric did turn down your offer Montana made things worse by ganging up on you. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 14:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


== [[Donner Party]] ==
== [[Donner Party]] ==

Revision as of 14:34, 27 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]

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]
Viriditas, I agree. You're right. I've been acting out of pathos instead of my usual logos, but it looks like we can all put this behind us and move on now. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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

You're welcome! I'm really impressed with how you worked with the others to find an acceptable consensus. Great job! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 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]

Victoria, I'm a very forgiving person, and I thought right from the start of this that you were acting in good-faith, so I'll not hold any grudges. I'm impressed that you've kept your word and apologized here, and I think that shows a depth of character that is quite commendable. We all make mistakes, but only mature people have the emotional intelligence to own up to it like you have. There are no hard feelings on my end, and I hope we can work together in the future! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the RBP article, I would strongly prefer if you left me to improve it with the help of others, and took your leave from commenting there, as I'm not overly trusting of your judgment there due to recent events. Is that acceptable? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left an explanation there. Victoria (tk) 18:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate. I would strongly prefer to receive guidance on these issues from someone other than you. Are you willing to voluntarily give me my space, or do I need to request a formal IB? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize how you must feel right now, but I think pursuing an IB right now is a big mistake. It sounds like Victoria is only trying to help. It would be to your benefit to accept her participation and to force yourself to get along with her and others. It may be difficult for you, and you may not like what they have to say, but different opinions can often help shape and improve articles. Viriditas (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm still a bit traumatized by the SPI, and more to the point, I do not trust her instincts or judgment, and the Copyright clerk has confirmed that she has some stuff mixed up. At this point, if my only choice is to work with her or quit I'd quit in a heartbeat. There are lots of other people who can help me with this issue, so in this instance I'll not be accepting your advice. I'm surprised you didn't suggest Victoria give me some space for a few weeks then ask later. The timing of this is terrible, when I want need to move on from this traumatic experience. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done be, shake it off and move on, what is done is done you were vindicated and there are a-lot of editors here that support you. You two need time apart and I am trying to start with it being voluntary rather than straight to an IB. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot imagine why Victoria would object to leaving me alone. She has been gunning for me for several days straight, and I've only been exonerated for a few hours, and now she wants to force mentor me. I haven't even caught my breath yet. It's not going to happen. I'm standing my ground. To be clear, though, this isn't only a response to the stress she's caused me, but I do not trust her judgment, at all! Also, she and her friends are still acting as though I'm someone who needs to be suspected, so she is not letting go of her massive mistake, apology or not. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) IMO you are both being very unfair to RO. She's been through the wringer and needs some recovery time. There is no reason at all that she should be expected to move forward as though nothing has happened. I've worked for years with people who have been through trauma and we would not have dreamed of subjecting the wounded person to this sort of thing before they had had some recovery time. There are plenty of others available to give her any help she may need. Gandydancer (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you see it that way. But, what's really going on here, is that RO is trying to improve a set of articles and the very editors who are involved in this interpersonal dispute just so happen to be active in this article improvement area (GAN, FAC, etc.) So it's to her benefit to put her personal feelings aside and to work with them, because this is just going to come up again soon enough and we'll be back here discussing it again. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now's not the time; it's too soon. Plus, Victoria and her friends are still acting as though I'm someone who needs to be suspected, and I won't work with her as long as she is playing both sides. You've been a big help to me, but can't I disagree with you about anything? To be honest, when I logged-in today I thought, great this is finally over, but you and Victoria are making this another bad day for me, so please just stop being so demanding that I interact with her. 24 hours ago she was trying to get me indeffed as a sock-troll, and now she's going to show me the ropes at gun point? There are lots of GA and FA writers that could help me; she's the worst possible choice. Hell, I'd rather take help from Eric Corbett before her! But maybe I'll just quit and let you guys work together, or request that those articles get deleted before I quit. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree with me on whatever you like, I don't mind. I'm not demanding you interact with her, I said you should force yourself to get along with her and other people who you are involved in conflicts with on these articles. That's all I said. The best way to do this is through the article improvement process. You're not going to be able to avoid any of these editors as they are all highly active in those areas. So, you are free to do what you like, but just remember, if you don't seize the opportunity to solve this now, we will be here again soon enough. You need closure, and the best way to do that is to move on. No grudges, no regrets, and no feelings of victimization. I realize you don't want to hear that, and you'll certainly receive encouragement from others to do the opposite. But I will tell you now, if you don't solve this problem here, you will be forced into it again in the coming weeks. I don't want you to quit, but if that's what you want, follow your heart. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria thanked Montana for this vicious comment, and now you want her to force mentor me? Can you please just stop adding pressure to an already stressful thing? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said anything about force mentoring. I'm taking this page off of my watchlist because I can already see where this is going. Good luck with your future endeavors. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, please don't un-watch me over this little point. I just need some distance, as I am too emotional today to decide anything. But maybe you misunderstood me. All I'm saying is, I will learn all the necessary skills and expectations from someone other than Victoria, who is currently acting as if I am a sock that got off the hook, which is a complete negation of any supposed apology. You said above, "I said you should force yourself to get along with her", and I assumed you meant so that I could learn about attribution and paraphrasing from her (do you realize she's still going at me at the RBP article?), which sure sounds like a forced mentorship to me. Please explain what you meant if not that? I don't always know what you mean right away. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IB

Rational, I feel that you should go ahead and ask for the interaction ban, I saw Montana's comment and right away saw that she was gunning for you which isn't going to happen if you continue just editing like you usually do. At this time ask for the IB and put this behind you, time to move on okay? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is sooooooo disheartening. Victoria thanked Montana for this vicious comment, and now she's going to force mentor me? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said ask for the IB and move past this. You don't have to let this one thing define things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait to see if Victoria will voluntarily leave me alone. If she refuses, I'll reconsider asking for an IB. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being forced to take a mentor? I don't know what to say about that. However, if you want a mentor, contact I JethroBT. He's good-people and might be able to match you with someone compatible. Lightbreather (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the lead, I really appreciate it! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I take back what I said before, things seem to have calmed down, happy editing! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 22 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]
That's very good advice. I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, nice to see that this mess is over now, we should all move on now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 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. If there is no identified master, how is there evidence to block for socking? 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]

Thanks, EChastain. I gladly and fully accept your apology. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irataba

As it happens I started the review of this simultaneously (saw the posts in the same watchlist update) with the post which made me aware of the SP investigation. Since that is now resolved, I am continuing the review, but have nothing to say today as I ended up correcting Mojave Desert instead! --Mirokado (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the update. I'm not in a hurry, so take your time. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RO. You've probably already checked, but just in case, have you looked for Irataba information on JSTOR? There's lots of useful, academic information on there. Many editors here have access to it (i'm applying for same), so if you don't, one of them might be able to supply you with it.-RHM22 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RHM22! I think I've already gleaned jstor pretty well, but I'll take another look to be sure I didn't miss anything. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you'd have checked there already, but I wanted to make sure. You'd be surprised how many people don't know about JSTOR (I was one of them until recently).-RHM22 (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's great, and you can get 6 articles per month for free! Rationalobserver (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but Wikipedia editors are allowed to request full and unlimited JSTOR access for free. I don't think you will qualify yet, because your edit count is probably too low, and I don't think you've been registered long enough.-RHM22 (talk) 02:30, 25 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 feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Roy Moore

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roy Moore. 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 feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EC

Well as someone watching from the sidelines I can say im totally unsurprised with the chat result between you and EC. Did you expect him to welcome you with open arms? Rational, there are plenty of editors here who wouldn't throw a "I think that you cannot be serious" remark right at your face when asking for help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It never hurts to try. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, and for a moment there I had hope things were going to work out, I had noticed him getting better as well, but still had my doubts. Anyways my advice going forward is to just steer away I mean there are plenty of helpful editors here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It came back to bit you here though, you have to know that there are a circle of editors here on Wikipedia who defend each other like crazy. Your mistake was going to Drmies for help, if you look at Corbett's talkpage history you will know why. Anyways I hope you come back after all of this I cant say I blame you though if you want to call it quits. I believe you are innocent here, you asked for help on Eric's talkpage and while Eric did turn down your offer Montana made things worse by ganging up on you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donner Party

Rationalobserver, are you looking for trouble?

EChastain (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EChastain: Just my thoughts but when an article is linked of course it is going to be read, if the source isn't reliable then it will help the article in the end so there really isn't a need to blow this up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I want to add, had Eric just said this as a reply using the Donor party as an example [9] then im convinced none of this would have happened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, what you, Rationalobserver, have done is baited and harrassed Eric Corbett on his talk page when you have history of fractious communication with Eric Corbett. I am warning you now, if I see you do this again, then you may find yourself blocked (not by myself, but it could be). There is no need to argue the point, the evidence is clear. Whether action is taken or not taken against Eric Corbett for responding to this is a different matter. I am only concerned with your behaviour here.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ddstretch: These paint a different story though

What happens after that is the breaking point with everyone making poor choices. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Two wrongs do not make a right. I am sure there are plenty who will take Eric Corbett to task over the style of his interactions, but given the fractious interactions between the two of them, both need to be told this must stop.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there, and feel that RO would agree to stay away from EC after what unfolded, this wont happen though with others linking to her edits on Eric's talkpage. The more people involved the worse things get. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think RO would be well advised to move away from that article, since it might appear to others that it was chosen just because Eric edited it in a major way (because of the history between the two). There are plenty of others that can be edited. What I am saying is that RO cannot claim terrible action on the part of EC very much if a deliberate choice is made to edit articles EC has had a major hand in editing up to that point. It's not an issue of ownership, it's an issue of being unduly provocative over the choice of what to edit, given the prior interactions between them.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well before I head off to bed I just want to say that everyone can walk away now, RO has been warned the discussion result at the WP:RS noticeboard will benefit the article either way and everyone can go on their ways with RO working on other articles. Or, this can be dragged into a huge mess involving the usual sides of editors and another long drawn out drama filled battle. I for one, prefer the former. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a pity that you didn't pitch in with such wise advice earlier Knowledgekid87. It's pretty obvious to all rational observers that you and your friends just love trolling for trouble. My advice to you is beware that you don't eventually find it. Giano (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would love to know who these "rational observers" are, otherwise something else may be obvious here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done nothing wrong here. I asked for advice, he said look at Donner Party, so I did. And aside from an obvious lack of attribution and some ridiculously overly detailed sections, I noticed that the Rarick book isn't purely a historical account. Which is exactly what SlimVirgin told me about a book I used. ddstretch, it's easy to say "stay away from Eric", but several of his friends have been following me around for weeks, confronting my work attacking me personally. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think you have done nothing wrong in the obvious light of posting material on Eric Corbett's talk page like this:

  • "(EC) Honestly, I feel sorry for you. It must be an unpleasant existence for a grown man to consistently act so immature and mean-spirited. You've bought into your own Wiki-myth, which is based in reality but greatly exaggerated. If you are really so great, why won't a publisher pay you to write something? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"
  • "You seem to resent Wikipedia so much that I assumed you were unemployed, because if you were being paid to write stuff like Bile Beans, I would think you'd do that versus giving away your work for free. I'll bet that if you wrote that article under a new account that nobody knew was you, you'd be surprised and disappointed at the reception you might receive from the same people who praise your work now. "Eric Corbett" is a Wiki-brand, but in a blind test I'm not convinced you'd get the same level of support. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"
  • "The attacks are far too petty to have validity, that's why I feel sorry for him. Adults behaving like immature teenagers is pathetic and sad. And no happy person would act this terrible on a regular basis. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"

Furthermore, you have subsequently been warned not to be insulting on another editor's talk page (see below). inally, given that you previously did the same thing here and acknowleged it was a mistake here, but have not done so in this case, I am sure that your behaviour is disruptibve to wikipedia. Given that many people have objected, also, to the issues raised on Donner Party, all the more so. To prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, I am blocking you for two weeks. I suggest that any requests for an ublock admit your disruptive and bad behaviour, and that you should not be unblocked until you give an undertaking to behave better.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Drmies. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

February 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   DDStretch  (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from relevant Donner Party section, above)

You think you have done nothing wrong in the obvious light of posting material on Eric Corbett's talk page like this:

  • "(EC) Honestly, I feel sorry for you. It must be an unpleasant existence for a grown man to consistently act so immature and mean-spirited. You've bought into your own Wiki-myth, which is based in reality but greatly exaggerated. If you are really so great, why won't a publisher pay you to write something? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"
  • "You seem to resent Wikipedia so much that I assumed you were unemployed, because if you were being paid to write stuff like Bile Beans, I would think you'd do that versus giving away your work for free. I'll bet that if you wrote that article under a new account that nobody knew was you, you'd be surprised and disappointed at the reception you might receive from the same people who praise your work now. "Eric Corbett" is a Wiki-brand, but in a blind test I'm not convinced you'd get the same level of support. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"
  • "The attacks are far too petty to have validity, that's why I feel sorry for him. Adults behaving like immature teenagers is pathetic and sad. And no happy person would act this terrible on a regular basis. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"

Furthermore, you have subsequently been warned not to be insulting on another editor's talk page (see below). inally, given that you previously did the same thing here and acknowleged it was a mistake here, but have not done so in this case, I am sure that your behaviour is disruptibve to wikipedia. Given that many people have objected, also, to the issues raised on Donner Party, all the more so. To prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, I am blocking you for two weeks. I suggest that any requests for an ublock admit your disruptive and bad behaviour, and that you should not be unblocked until you give an undertaking to behave better.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rationalobserver&oldid=649091705"