User talk:Rationalobserver/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Rationalobserver, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Rationalobserver! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)

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

RE: xx (album)

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

Please comment on Talk:Israel

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

Interlacing comment

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

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

Garbage RfC

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

Thanks for the invite, but I find genre disputes to be among the project's biggest time sinks, and I'd rather not expend any energy on them. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem, and I completely agree. --Lpdte77 (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing conversions on talk pages

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

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

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

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

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

Not a sockpuppet

Per WP:VALIDALT:

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

Per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY:

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

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

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

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

Please don't bring the drama from AN/I to my talk page. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No sweat. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Eric

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

I agree. I'll stop commenting for the reasons you gave above. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not think this is right, you have the evidence needed I would take it to Arbcom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't dream of it, as surely there are others who are more respected; they should do it, not me. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you edited under another account?

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

Bishonen, I first edited Wikipedia about 10 years ago as an IP, and more recently I had created an account that I subsequently retired because I made the mistake of using my real name as the account name, so I guess the answer to your first question is yes, I edited Wikipedia quite a bit before I made this account two months ago. If you don't mind I'll refrain from outing myself by answering the second question. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's fair enough. Was your previous account subject to any sanctions? --John (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No it wasn't. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --John (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem, John, I understand why "newer" users with prior experience might be viewed with suspicion, but I would also like to know at what point do the accusations become inappropriate, or even personal attacks. I thought Wikipedia encouraged IPs to make an account, which I agree with, but to then accuse them of being socks because they aren't a complete Wikinoob doesn't seem right to me. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
In my experience Wikipedians are very forgiving to those who are here to write an encyclopaedia. Per User:Bishonen, are you? --John (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there a minimum percentage of article edits that one should achieve, because I have been involved in a few policy and guideline discussions, and I have made numerous improvements to several of those pages. Why am I under fire here? This seems like payback for going against Eric. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

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

Well, that's awfully nice of you to protect Eric from incivility, as we all know how unerringly polite he is to others, but what about Jimbo? I see this comment: "Jimbo is unfit to to be the public face of Wikikipedia", as a personal attack. Don't you? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds far too much like my children's "well he did it first". Seriously though, accusing Eric of being abusive is one thing, but if you're going to accuse someone of misogyny, you really, really, need to be backing that up with hard diffs and evidence. Judging by the number of female editors that Eric works quite happily with on his articles and talkpage, I think your claim is ... unlikely. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a double standard though, as Eric's comment toward Jimbo is certainly a personal attack. Nonetheless, I'll be more careful about the m-word, as maybe I've misjudged him. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that it was wise to strike that comment for the sake of calming down a big drama, but the diffs are not hard to find.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have re-instated Black Kite's removal of your comment; I consider "He drives females away, and he drives new editors away. He is toxic and immature" a personal attack, especially as you provide no proof to back it up. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal and stricken the remaining uncivil comments, but I hope the irony is not lost here that you are defending Eric Corbett against incivility. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Personal attacks are removed, not simply struck through - you are bordering on edit warring, I suggest you stop. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • For clarification, your position is that calling someone an "idiot" or a "cunt" is acceptable, but calling someone a misogynist is not? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Is dismissing 49 featured articles as "allegedly" good material acceptable to the editors here who produce most of the great articles here for free either?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, I'm not dismissing his work, though it looks to me that most of his effort has gone into castles and bogs and pixies and stuff that I would never read anyway. Are you suggesting that all one needs to do is write 50 FAs to earn "God powers" that can be used to abuse and demean? Are the other prolific writers of FAs also given free-reign to abuse? Eric seems [removed], so I really don't care that he's allegedly a good editor. If good editors are that rare here, it might have something to do with the hostile environment that he contributes to. When Wikipedia protects one editor at the expense of all the others it has failed as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed a personal attack and ideally one should be a bit careful about discussing users at pages where they do not participate themselves. Iselilja (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Dr. Blofeld mentioned Eric in this thread, and I was merely responding to that. Am I not allowed to respond on my talk page? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Iselilja, can you explain why I cannot speak my opinion about Eric at my talk page, but Eric can call Chillium "a piece of shit" on his? Do you patrol Eric's page for personal attacks, or just those who oppose Eric? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't even reply some editors have it out against others for reasons. just edit and move on okay? =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Rationalobserver I am not going to discuss Eric here, suffice to note that his user page is currently protected, so at least one admin didn't think some of the stuff going on there was totally all right. I thought the line I removed was a particular personal attack. I am not going to make a habit of interfering at your talk page, and you are of course free to reinsert your words if you think it right. I will not remove it again. I understand my behaviour can be seen as incivil too, brusque at at least. Iselilja (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Iselilja, I don't want to develop any bad habits, so if that truly is frowned upon here then I have no problem avoiding it; however, as an admin, you can redact the comment that calls Chillium a "piece of shit" even though it's protected, right? That would seem appropriate, given the circumstances; don't you think? You aren't really going to come here to give me a lesson on talk page etiquette while looking the other way to an obvious personal attack that Eric has on his talk page, are you? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not admin; I was interfering at your talk page as a fellow editor. Feel free to remove my comments, if you so like. (I removed the RPA template and replaced it with simply "removed"). Iselilja (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iselilja: If you want personal attacks Eric has made plenty towards editors there that do not regularly go on his talkpage. I have diffs if you would like me to provide some. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 Well, as I said above, I don't think it's ideal to discuss other editors negatively at pages where they don't participate, so I believe I should try to hold myself to that standard, right now at least. Iselilja (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Its a nice standard to follow and agree to it but it is not followed by a-lot of editors, pointing out Rationalobserver's edit when so many others go un-noticed is why you got the response you did. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are relativity new and already have had things thrown at you, don't let them get you down there are plenty of areas on wikipedia that are good which makes me stick around here. =)

Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Random act of kindness!

Daemon64 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Garbage RfC

Rationalobserver, Hi, I would appreciate input on a recent poll.--Lpdte77 (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, sorry; Just recalled your reply to the former request. --Lpdte77 (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I added my !vote. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Lpdte77 (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Traditional marriage

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional marriage. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My amended statement at RfC

I've amended my statement at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves to add additional detail and some links. I'm really under the gun at work and this RfC came up unexpectedly so I'm pressed for time to do proper strikethroughs, etc. Bbb23 had a good suggestion, that I notify anyone who's added an endorsement, so you can decide if you think you need to re-sign or remove your endorsement or make a different response. Msnicki (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"The first bit"

Re this edit summary; you wrote that "Facts and ideas that are considered common knowledge cannot be protected by copyright", implying that particularly obscure facts or ideas could be. That's not true, and that's what I was objecting to. Ironholds (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ironholds, I was referring to "The only source material that you can use in an essay without attribution is material that is considered common knowledge and is therefore not attributable to one source." Do you think my addition contradicted Harvard, or do you think that Harvard contradicts our policy? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Harvard is talking about plagiarism in an academic context, not copyright. If they're talking about copyright, well, they're simply wrong. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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 WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. 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) 00:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"C..." is never acceptable?

That's one of those absolute statements.

I'm Australian. An old part of the Australian idiom, rarer now, but still in existence, is for a man to greet an old male friend with "How are ya' ya' silly old cunt". It's a friendly expression, between two mates. It has nothing to do with women. I don't use the it myself. Just highlighting how impossible it is to ever create a list of words that are never acceptable.

Civility is an excellent goal, but lists of words aren't the issue. It's attitudes. I get in the way of POV pushers. They tend to come and annoy me on my Talk page. I first tell them to go away. They keep it up. I revert to stronger language. They report me for swearing. They get banned from my Talk page. Perfect strategy? I don't know. But it works. You see, it's the POV pushing that's really the uncivil behaviour in that story. The stronger language highlights it and tends to reduce it's occurrence. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I hear you, but I think that if the word can also be used in a friendly statement, then its use should be obviously playful in that context. If I said, "How are ya', ya' silly old cunt", you would likely realize immediately that I am not trying to insult you. On the other hand, if I said: "Stop reverting me you stupid cunt", you would realize that I used the word in anger in an attempt to insult you. Like I said at Civility and WER, according to WP:NPA: "some types of comments are never acceptable", such as "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets". That's quite explicit, and "cunt" certainly qualifies as a gender specific epithet according to this guideline. Your point above can also be applied to the term, "nigger", but the word does not cease to be an epithet just because there are a few appropriate and/or joking ways to use it. I can understand that sometimes certain policies are not enforced, but if that's the case with Civility, I think we should reconsider including it as a pillar, because nothing breeds contempt for rules as much as those that are on the books but not enforced in practice. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you and I actually agree on many things Rationaobserver, even if we have different ways to get our points across, and different ideas on how to achieve those goals. I hate that word, won't tolerate it as a personal attack, and when used casually, will just warn a user that it can get them blocked. I've told Eric a half dozen times that he needs to stop, and supported his block for saying it the other day. I can still like Eric and dislike some of the things he says, in part because I know that word is used differently in the UK. That isn't an excuse, but an explanation. I don't think it is the biggest crime here or as bad as POV pushing and POV socking, but it is an insensitive thing to say if you know it will offend a large number of people. I have no children, but if I did and one called someone the C word, I would slap the taste out of their mouth. In my culture (US) that is the most offensive thing you can say. But Wikipedia isn't an American workplace, it is a global village, so I have to make small allowances even if I find it offensive personally. I can't let my bias get in the way of acting neutral as an administrator. I will still discourage it, and block for it when it is used as a weapon, without judging the character of the other person.
You keep getting back to the Five Pillars, a document I like myself. It is a clever document, an essay really, that sums up our hopes and ideals but has zero power of enforcement. It was created by User:Neutrality in 2005, can be edited by anyone except IPs (it is semi-protected). The Pillars are powerful, simple, useful, helpful but not policy and they never will be. They reflect our our hopes and dreams for Wikipedia, and serve new users very well because they so concisely explain who we are. They do so at the expense of accuracy, however, as we are forced to oversimplify in order to make each pillar an easy to understand little nugget. They do not form the basis for policy. They stand alone, and in that respect, have served us well.
You are relatively new here, I will just say that the current fit of incivility will pass. Like the ocean tides, different problems rise and fall, part of a larger pattern, somewhat chaotic if you look at up close, but it smooths out if you see over time. Most of the people here, even the rude ones, are good people if you get to know them. The people who get things done, who accomplish things (here and life in general) are those that can lick their wounds, admit their mistakes, step back sometimes and reflect, and not take things personally. I put a giant apology on my page (and 3 others) the other day for a mistake I made. The taste of crow still lingers. But it ended what could have been drama, and restored faith in those involved, instantly, so it served Wikipedia best for me to do that instead of beat the drama drum. While right on the merits, I was wrong on procedure, but I would rather be happy than right. Anyway, I won't be upset if you revert. For me, the goal is always to find the things we agree upon, and build on that, rather than debate the areas we disagree. I'm wired that way, to accept differences, and allow myself to consider other ideas while they consider mine. Hopefully, that is something that will happen. Dennis - 2¢ 16:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You warned me about being "disruptive" at WER, but have you ever warned Eric about being disruptive at GGTF? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The Pillars are powerful, simple, useful, helpful but not policy and they never will be.
Huh? Dennis, the first pillar, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is a policy and so is the second pillar: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The third and fourth pillars, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Civility are also policies. The last pillar, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, is proabably the closest to an essay, but it too is an official Wikipedia policy. So, what exactly are you claiming, that these five pages are policy in name only? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The individual policies existed as policies before the "Pillars" was invented. It is useful, but the idea of "pillars" is still an artificial construct. And yes I did warn Eric, in particular about calling Jimbo the C word, and told him "I would have blocked you too". I didn't warn him at GGTF because I didn't SEE it. I've never edited there, it isn't even on my watchlist. I did go there once, I didn't care for the tone, I left without comment. For me to comment might have been disruptive. I've warned Eric on other things, I just don't beat him over the head with it. He isn't stupid. To repeat it over and over would be bludgeoning. That is my point: Once you have had your say, don't keep repeating the same points over and over. You don't have to let everyone know every time you disagree. It can become badgering. If you say "I hate ice cream", you don't have to tell me you hate ice cream every time I bring up how much I like it in future discussions, nor convince me that ice cream is bad for me. It gets tiresome, and after a while, it is disruptive. Sometimes, you just have to know when to drop the stick.
If I "hated" you, I wouldn't be telling you this. It doesn't benefit me in any way, I have nothing to gain personally and could be doing other things, yet here I am. Again, you are rather new, and I don't want to see you eventually in the same position that Carol and Eric are right now. I've seen it before, many times, I know what it looks like before/during/after. Usually it happens at WP:AN, where the threshold is much lower and the ban is just as final. I'm saying that if you want to do good, you really need to learn to disconnect emotionally here and assume some good faith. Worry less about breaking things down, and instead, embrace those that agree with you on most issues, and build something great together. We need more articles on notable women, for instance. Lets make a list and fix that instead of arguing about things that don't improve the experience for the reader.
If you can't see that what I've written in the best of faith, with years of experience behind it, and that it is the same thing I would (and have) said to Eric, then I'm wasting my time and yours. I'm not trying to argue with you here, nor wag my finger at you, I'm trying to help you. If you don't want the help, that is ok, too. Say the word, I will leave your talk page, I promise. I'm not trying to force it on you, nor judge your character in the least, I'm commenting on your methods. I'm trying to reach out to you because I've seen others walk the path you are on, and I know where it leads. Dennis - 2¢ 19:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No offense, but I see you as an apologist for your friends and an elitist regarding everyone else. In the past few weeks you have made your rounds to every drama-filled discussion, and at each stop you assert what is no more than your personal opinion regarding how things should be around here. I think admins should be expected to uphold policies, not undermine them in favor of their preferences. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
And at first glance, I can see why you might see me that way. I'm not so easy to get to know. Most of those places were places I was forced to go, such as Arb, where someone presented evidence against me, without even bothering to notify me. WER, I founded, so it is natural I am there. The same with ANI and AN, those are specifically admin boards, and the community decided I should be an admin. To me, the most powerful and important policy we have is WP:IAR. It isn't a license to do anything you want, but it does say to not let written rules get in the way of improving the encyclopedia, the articles. I don't quote a lot of policies, you don't see me on many policy pages either. That is one of the reasons many people asked me to run for admin, I try to just use common sense instead of written rules. And really, the core of Wikipedia was written on that premise, that you don't need written rules if you just use common sense. You see it everywhere here. But back to your impression of me, I completely understand why that is the impression, and find no fault in you for coming to that conclusion given recent events. All I can say is that if you took the time to know me, you would see otherwise. You might disagree with me sometimes, but you would understand my motivation, why I'm so liberal when it comes to enforcement. If you choose to, you do, if not, I understand. Right now, I'm trying to get to know you, instead of assuming you are the sum total of my impression over the last week or so. Dennis - 2¢ 21:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. 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) 00:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You have inspired a new award, the "No Gaslighting Award!"

The "No Gaslighting Award!"
Please accept this award, on behalf of all the women editors here who are tired of being gaslighted, with our thanks for sticking up for all women editors who can not to come forward to confront the bullies themselves! Djembayz (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Djembayz! You are too kind. I humbly accept this award. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

FGM

Hi Rationalobserver, this is just to thank you again for your kind support at the FAC. It was very good of you to take the time to review it; I know it's not an easy read. It meant a lot to me that you were willing to do that. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, as a reader of Wikipedia it meant a lot to me that you had done such a fantastic job with an immensely important and difficult topic. I should really be thanking you; hell, all females who read Wikipedia should thank you, and that's millions upon millions of us! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird, eh?

Time magazine came out with a list of words to ban. Among those words was feminists. The magazine later apologized. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, and I agree that it was weird. They also recently described Ted Cruz as the US's most interesting politician, which I found equally bizarre! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
GoodDay, if you need more proof that Time is well into its decline, take a look at this! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steam

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Steam. 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) 00:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aspromonte goat

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aspromonte goat. 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, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). 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, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 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) 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

talk:Hotter than July (album)

Head over there and give your opinion 5.81.225.225 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Dan56 is a party to that dispute, so I'm gonna decline. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. 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, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. 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, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your experience with Wikipedia so far

Hello Rationalobserver,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

E-mail sent, Gabrielm199. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. 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, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 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) 00:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I thought you were very level-headed and rational. I liked what you were trying to accomplish re Wikipedia's civility problem, and I'll miss you.

Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Lightbreather; it's much appreciated! Is an unblock request my only recourse here, or can I request that this block be reviewed at AN/I? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

GoodDay

GoodDay, I think it's cruel and unnecessary that you feel the need to tell everyone I am a sock when the jury is still out, but I'm not sure why you felt the need to ping me when I cannot respond. That seems like mean-spirited and uncivil behavior to me. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I retracted that 'update', as I wasn't aware that your 'case' is being reviewed. I'm very sensative (maybe, too sensative) when socking is in the air. If you're innocent? you've my apologies. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course I'm innocent, but I made the mistake of learning too fast and applying what I learned after several years of on-and-off editing as an IP (I also edited for several weeks under a previous account that I retired for privacy reasons). This place is too quick to assume the worst in people, when they are supposed to AGF. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not perfect. I too, can make mistakes. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. FWIW, I forgive you, and I sincerely apologize for snapping at you. This has been a disheartening experience all around, but you had always been nice to me, so I shouldn't have taken that tone. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
'Tis alright :) GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Block Notice

I'm not interested in an unblock request. This is the last thing I needed to show me that this place is terribly dysfunctional and not really worth the effort. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, unless anyone takes a disliking to you then you are treated as a criminal. Good luck and goodbye! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rationalobserver (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I changed my mind, since a couple of others weighed-in at the SPI, including Sergecross73, Lightbreather, and Chillum, and they think that a mistake has been made. I am not socking and I've never been blocked before, so I don't know what else to say except that I think another pair of eyes should double-check Mike V's decision. Also, if his thinking is that I am only here to bother Dan56, I would happily agree to an interaction ban between us. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After a discussion with Phil, we were able to resolve a concern that I had. Therefore, I'm unblocking the account. However, I would encourage you to abide by the interaction ban to which you have agreed. Mike V • Talk 00:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been involved in these discussions, so I shouldn't be making any administrative decisions personally, but for what its worth, I believe its worth a second look. I thought the evidence was rather weak, as did several other editors, such as Lightbreather and Chillum. If SPI worked off of consensus, the block would not have happened. That's my 2 cents. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
While I remain of the opinion that the evidence was not conclusive and this is not a block I would have done myself, I also concede that User:Mike V is far more experienced in sock puppetry cases than myself. Chillum 18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Chillum, I asked Lightbreather below if this block can be reviewed at AN/I, or if this unblock request is my only recourse. What advice can you give me? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike V:- looking at [1] and [2] they're in the same time zone, but their proportions of article edits, and edit summary usage are very different. Are you entirely confident about this? PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike, I'm also concerned about this block. I've looked at Rationalobserver's edits and the sockpuppeteer's, and nothing jumps out. If there's an issue between her and Dan56, an IBAN would solve things. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin. I guess what makes this so frustrating is that everything else here is based on consensus, which I respect, but if it only takes one admin to permanently ban you from Wikipedia, then this is a loosely organized anarchy, which I don't respect. Can this block be reviewed at AN/I, or is the unblock request my only option? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, yes, it can be reviewed at AN/I, but Mike may agree to lift it without that, given that several people are expressing concern. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally an unblock request is taken before the community when the reviewing admin wishes to unblock but cannot find agreement with the blocking admin. I would do just that however I commented in the SPI case and as such am involved.

That being said I don't think it is an unreasonable request to have a more open viewing on this matter. Chillum 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I just got back from the grocery store and only noticed this request recently. I'm currently in the process of composing an email to PhilKnight to discuss a few things regarding the block. Best, Mike V • Talk 21:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Mike V. While I assume this is a minor procedural point, am I correct to assume that you are now both the blocking and reviewing admin, or have I misunderstood something? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I assume Mike put it on hold so as to give further thought to the block. I have no doubt that he will not decline his own unblock request, if anything he will unblock you are return the request to an open state. Chillum 22:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks, Chillum. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes that's correct. I changed the unblock template to the default hold setting, which seems to have auto-filled my name. It was just so that others could see at a glance that the request is being reviewed. Mike V • Talk 22:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That's what I figured. Thanks for being willing to discuss this. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

IBAN

Thanks, Mike V, for being willing to take another look. Regarding the IB, can I assume that Dan56 is equally banned from interacting with me, because I agreed to a two-way IB, not a one-way, which I think is not right. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC) I'd like to revert this edit. Would that be okay? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't force him to abide by something he didn't agree to. However, if you're not interacting with him I don't see a reason for him to interact with you. If there's ever something that's troublesome, please let me know and I'd be happy to mediate. Mike V • Talk 00:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but that's too grey for me. What I said above is that, "I would happily agree to an interaction ban between us", which has to be two-ways or nothing, since a one-way would mean that he can revert me and talk about me but I can't do the same, and I do not agree to that. E.g., the edit above, where he removed my oppose. I should be able to revert that right? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Winter Solstice


KylieTastic (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, KylieTastic! Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you as well! Thanks again for being so kind regarding my script-assisted errors. It's nice when you can make mistakes without getting your head chewed off! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your unblock

Hi Rationalobserver, you're welcome, and I'm glad to see you're unblocked. The best thing is to stay away from Dan56 and hope that he will respect an IBAN too. But in your shoes I wouldn't wikilawyer it (or revert anything re: your post above). Just observe it yourself, and if the situation continues at least it won't be because of anything you've done. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sure that's good advice, but it's not right that he removed my comments under false pretenses. Rationalobserver (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Chillum has restored your posts. Looking ahead, it really is in your interests not to interact with him and hope that he extends you the same courtesy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll take your advice; don't worry, I won't let you down! Rationalobserver (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I agree that altering archives to remove your comments was out of line and have reverted it.

The only way an IBAN is going to be enforceable or anything other than two people choosing to ignore each other is through community consensus. Short of a community imposed IBAN there is no way to enforce it and no penalty is likely if it is broken.

The best way to propose an enforceable IBAN is through the community, from WP:BAN: Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

A ban can be proposed there. If you do expect scrutiny that user and yourself. My suggestion is to try to avoid this user and if that user insists on interacting with you then escalate it. Chillum 01:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll take your advice also, and if anything comes up I'll seek guidance before acting. Thanks again! Rationalobserver (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Im happy to see you unblocked =) Glad to have ya here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Knowledgekid87! Happy Holidays! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
You too, hope yours are good for you and your family =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see 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, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I've given Dan56 a final warning that even passing mentions about you being a sock are out of line. That being said, please disengage in all of this, so you don't find yourself in more drama. His evidence is terrible, so I don't believe he's going to get anywhere. Its best if you just ignore him and go about your business. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, because if I cannot bring new violations to an admin's attention then nobody will stop him from this ongoing harassment. The only reason I brought this issue to AN/I in the first place and demanded an SPI was so that the accusations would end, which they haven't. Thanks for giving him a final warning though; I'll assume that's the last one he needs, but what should I do if he continues? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't word that right. My advice is to ignore it because his case is weak. If you move on, it may indirectly better show that you're not a sock out to get him like he claims, but rather an editor who is interested in building an encyclopedia. But that's just my advice. I'm not telling you that you can't report him. You can report him to your heart's content. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and I think it's generally good advice, but if I go into "ignore the attacks mode", it negates the AN/I consensus, which stated: "At this point the only remaining acceptable location to make accusations of sock puppetry against Rationalobserver is at WP:SPI with evidence." That's all I was ever asking for, that Dan56 stop making accusations at various talk pages and instead take his concerns to the appropriate venue, which is SPI. I've done everything I can to follow proper procedure, and that's the same standard that Dan56 should be held to. FTR, I only opposed him at one article, that's it! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Seeing that Dan removed the last warning [3] shows that he could care less of it, I want to add as well it is all connected [4] I wanted to link you to this as I feel that an editor should have the right to defend themselves and not be prone to grave dancing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rationalobserver, I want to add my voice to Serge's advice. It's important that you disengage completely from Dan and not mention his name again. There are lots of eyes on the situation now, and others will deal with it if it continues. There's no need for you to watch Dan's contribs or respond in any way. Every time you mention him, it opens things up again. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm sure you're right, and I'll follow your advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, and don't worry, things will work out. Everything will look different once there's a bit of distance. I hope you have a nice relaxing time over the holidays. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Primary sources

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Primary sources. 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, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Arb

Please don't grave dance [5]. It is unbecoming. (Dennis) Farmer Brown 2¢ 17:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That was quick. Are you stopping in so that your name is included in all the high-profile pages, and the record reflects your even-handedness? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, I suppose you just happen to miss this thread, and you aren't once again hammering on those who disagree with you while giving a pass to those who do. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no clue where you are going with that, but it doesn't matter. I'm not even using my regular account, for that matter. I was involved with the DP RFC/U and the request for the case, which is the only reason I made two comments on the remedy. My name is already tied to that case and was two months ago. I didn't participate in the evidence or worksheet for it. If you knew the history between DP and I, you would understand how silly the claim sound. I didn't see the other thread, or any other thread for that matter, as I'm only watching a couple of pages on topics that started before I went on break, to finish what I started. If I was trying to win "points", I would have said something on the Arb page. I said it here to give you the chance to simply retract the comment, because it reflects poorly on you, not on DP. If you can't see that, then I can't help you. Farmer Brown 2¢ 17:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, with all due respect I wholeheartedly reject your efforts to mentor me. I am not interested in getting advice from you, who I find to be a bit embarrassing. You hover around these drama pages and wait until the consensus is clear before stating your position, which then happens to coincide with the developing consensus. You argued against the long-term evidence at the RfC/U, but this has always been about a long-term problem. You want to look good to as many people as possible, but as far as I can tell you stand for nothing except looking good to as many people as possible. You are the last person on here that I would seek out for advice, so kindly stay away from my talk page if all you want to do is scold me for not acting civil enough for your varying standards. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. 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, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

Done

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

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

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Civility

This is me [6] 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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
I agree, just let it pass. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
That's exactly what I intend to do. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
That's exactly what I have learned from this situation. Thanks for the reaffirming advice! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rationalobserver/Archive_1&oldid=1125491026"