User talk:Rationalobserver: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:18, 28 January 2015 editEChastain (talk \| contribs)2,665 edits →A Lesson to you: probably if you ask him he will← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:47, 28 January 2015 edit undoKnowledgekid87 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers96,763 edits →A Lesson to you: ReNext edit →
Line 243:		Line 243:
	: No one put me up to anything, Giano, that's the truth. The accusations about conspiracies are fantasy, at least as far as them involving me. I've only ever emailed one person on here, and it had nothing to do with EC. I never wanted to bring him down, I just wanted him to be held accountable for his actions, as others are, but I'll just stay away because it's not my place, and it seems futile anyway. I think it's a sad state of affairs when one editor is held up as valuable at the expense of all others, but I suppose he is too entrenched to do anything about that now. I didn't expect to find such a problem with cliques around here, but I suppose there is no reason why this particular group of people would be above that most immature of social structures. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be around, as the toxic culture here is off-putting, and I can't seem to find anyone interested in reviewing my work, but thanks for encouraging me nonetheless. ] (]) 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)		: No one put me up to anything, Giano, that's the truth. The accusations about conspiracies are fantasy, at least as far as them involving me. I've only ever emailed one person on here, and it had nothing to do with EC. I never wanted to bring him down, I just wanted him to be held accountable for his actions, as others are, but I'll just stay away because it's not my place, and it seems futile anyway. I think it's a sad state of affairs when one editor is held up as valuable at the expense of all others, but I suppose he is too entrenched to do anything about that now. I didn't expect to find such a problem with cliques around here, but I suppose there is no reason why this particular group of people would be above that most immature of social structures. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be around, as the toxic culture here is off-putting, and I can't seem to find anyone interested in reviewing my work, but thanks for encouraging me nonetheless. ] (]) 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
	::If you want your work reviewed, then one of the worst thing you can do is alienate ]. Look at his user page and see how many GA's he's reviewed! Probably if you had just gone to his talk page and asked him to review your GA nominations, he would have done so. He often helps new editors. ] (]) 19:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)		::If you want your work reviewed, then one of the worst thing you can do is alienate ]. Look at his user page and see how many GA's he's reviewed! Probably if you had just gone to his talk page and asked him to review your GA nominations, he would have done so. He often helps new editors. ] (]) 19:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
			:::EChastain his edits have been toxic and unhelpful to the encyclopedia the only reason why he is still around is because of "all of these good GA noms" other than that from his cursing others out to his gang chiming in to put down editors on his talkpage it is nothing and im not the only one who feels this way. - ] (]) 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:47, 28 January 2015

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hello, Rationalobserver, and welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. 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)

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Misplaced Pages The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Misplaced Pages
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Misplaced Pages etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

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

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages: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

News and notes: The next big step for Wikidata—forming a hub for researchers

In the media: Study tour controversy; class tackles the gender gap

Traffic report: Surfin' the Yuletide

Op-ed: My issues with the Wiki Education Foundation

Featured content: A bit fruity

Recent research: Misplaced Pages in higher education; gender-driven talk page conflicts; disease forecasting

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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

In the media: ISIL propaganda video; AirAsia complaints

Interview: Interview with Jakob, one of Misplaced Pages's more prolific waterway contributors

Featured content: Kock up

Traffic report: Auld Lang Syne

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.

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music

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

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Op-ed: Articles for creation needs you

WikiProject report: Articles for creation: the inside story

News and notes: Erasmus Prize recognizes the global Misplaced Pages community

In the media: Misplaced Pages's birthday brings tributes, app, award; Castro death rumors

Featured content: Citations are needed

Traffic report: Wikipédia sommes Charlie

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Speedy keep

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

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.

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

From the editor: Introducing your new editors-in-chief

Anniversary: A decade of the Signpost

Interview: WWII veteran honors shipmates through Misplaced Pages editing

News and notes: Annual report released; Wikimania; steward elections

Op-ed: Let's make WikiProjects better

In the media: Johann Hari; bandishes and delicate flowers

Featured content: Yachts, marmots, boat races, and a rocket engineer who attempted to birth a goddess

Arbitration report: As one door closes, a (Gamer)Gate opens

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.

Civility

This is me 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee for details. There is also Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Residuum_and_enforcement which gives some brief information, as well as at the top of Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Objection

That diff shows a possibly gross misunderstanding of what Cassianto actually meant, if we assume good-faith on his part, and nothing more. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC) You're rationalizing, Rationalobserver. (Since when does anyone use phrase "fucking victim" to mean "rape victim"? The only reasonable good-faith explanation for that, is if the user was not proficient in English, e.g. if English wasn't the user's first language. But that possibility was removed with that user's "double-meaning" comment. So, tell me how you're not rationalizing here, it seems plain that you are.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing got convoluted. First of all I basically agree that the interpretation is far from reasonable, but to assert that ORY is playing everybody seems like an AGF fail. Maybe you're right, and ORY is making a ridiculous claim in an attempt to make Cassianto look bad, but I think the safer assumption is that they were looking for insults where none existed. My basic position is that, according to numerous editors, the interpretation made by ORY is not realistic, so it will be ignored. That ought to be enough here, since no admin blocked them in a timely fashion despite the great amount of interest this incident has garnered. A block at this point would be stale, so what exactly is the point of going on and on about how they should have been blocked? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point I agree that a block at this point would be stale, but what I didn't know is the history Cassianto had regarding these same type of things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh for sure. He and Schrocat get into lots of these kerfuffles, but I guess not enough yet. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A Lesson to you

I have no idea (but it will come out in the wash - things always do) who put you up to the idea that you could be the heroine who brought down Eric Corbett alone, but it was a ridiculous notion based on rubbish and far too thin ice; I suspect you realise that now. Sometimes, those who seem our friends on Misplaced Pages are not quite what they seem and often driving their own agendas, but they like a stooge to test the ice for them. With the benefit of your experience and hindsight, I wish you happy editing and look forward to seeing some good pages. Giano (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No one put me up to anything, Giano, that's the truth. The accusations about conspiracies are fantasy, at least as far as them involving me. I've only ever emailed one person on here, and it had nothing to do with EC. I never wanted to bring him down, I just wanted him to be held accountable for his actions, as others are, but I'll just stay away because it's not my place, and it seems futile anyway. I think it's a sad state of affairs when one editor is held up as valuable at the expense of all others, but I suppose he is too entrenched to do anything about that now. I didn't expect to find such a problem with cliques around here, but I suppose there is no reason why this particular group of people would be above that most immature of social structures. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be around, as the toxic culture here is off-putting, and I can't seem to find anyone interested in reviewing my work, but thanks for encouraging me nonetheless. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want your work reviewed, then one of the worst thing you can do is alienate User:Eric Corbett. Look at his user page and see how many GA's he's reviewed! Probably if you had just gone to his talk page and asked him to review your GA nominations, he would have done so. He often helps new editors. EChastain (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

EChastain his edits have been toxic and unhelpful to the encyclopedia the only reason why he is still around is because of "all of these good GA noms" other than that from his cursing others out to his gang chiming in to put down editors on his talkpage it is nothing and im not the only one who feels this way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)