User talk:Rationalobserver/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed, and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Australia Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Robot Chicken episodes

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

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Would you mind considered writing a good article review for Bitcoin? Thanks! Yoshi24517Chat Online 03:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. Rationalobserver (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semicolon + however

Hi, RO. I see that there's been debate about whether there is or should be a rule about this. "However", as a conjuctive adjunct, can occupy several positions in a clause—i.e. thematic (first), medial, and afterthought. Not all of these could be logically preceded by a semicolon (thematic position might, but why lock writers into that?). Tony (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tony1! I thought the semi-colon is needed whenever the however is used in the same way that one would use nevertheless or nonetheless, but I might be mistaken about that. Will you please link me to the relevant discussion? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sheesh. Please not let us have another debate about grammar. The usage varies and frequently is cultural in origin. Tony1 has written, amongst other things, a much-linked essay regarding good writing style. The essay may just perhaps not be correct in every detail but any discussion about minutiae should probably take place at that talk page.

I have no opinion on this specific issue but, really, there are far more serious problems among the 4.5 million articles than a quibble regarding placement of punctuation etc. If you really must quibble then go fix the several thousand articles that use the words such as "passed away" and "breathed his/her last", which are clearly emotive. As are phrases such as "died as just 14" etc. Or the ones that with complete redundancy say "in the year 1990" etc. Those are gnoming, too, but at least they fix pretty obvious daftness.

My apologies for the numerous grammatical failures in the above - comma splices, split infinitives etc. Yep, I know of them but in the scale of things this stuff is pretty ridiculous and "real world" guides often do not say the same thing. MOS is a guideline, not a policy, and this place has several million articles that suffer from far more severe problems. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

MOS:HOWEVERPUNC agrees with me. So if you want to argue about this the right place is at the MoS talk page, not here. Rationalobserver (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
HOWEVERPUNC be damned. Did you even read my comment above that "MOS is a guideline, not a policy"? It is this sort of combativeness over trivia that is getting you into trouble, RO: choose your battles wisely. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't even know why this is being discussed here, as I haven't mentioned that point in several weeks. Can you please supply a diff to support: "It is this sort of combativeness over trivia that is getting you into trouble", because this thread seems like an attempt to bait me into arguing, but why would I need to debate this point when the MoS agrees with me? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
That bit of MOS needs scrutiny. I've not noticed it before. Tony (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Please comment on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC for setting of the film Glengarry Glen Ross

Please join the discussion that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film is set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City"). Another editor says that only secondary sources should be cited.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Please comment on Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Irataba's gift

I just got Hinton's Irataba's gift today and it turns out to be extremely interesting and useful. It turns out that 1. in the second half of the 19th century the Mohave language underwent a sound change that changed s to [θ] (th as in thing) and ʂ (sh as in shirt) to s (i.e. sing became thing, and shirt became sirt). 2. I 1850 J. W. Powell collected a Mohave wordlist. In 1863 on his visit to DC a linguist asked Irataba to help him make a wordlist of Mohave words. In Irataba's wordlist the words differ from the pronunciation given in Powell's list - showing that Irataba in his pronunciation had almost completed the sound shift. 3. By the late 1870s all Mohaves seem to have used the new pronunciation that was first recorded for Irataba. This leads Hinton to suggest that apart from providing the data from which we can see the sound change in progress, Irataba personally had two effects in causing the spread of the sound change. First, his role in creating the reservation meant that traditional barriers between Mohave dialects were disrupted as speakers of all the dialects had to live together on the reservation. This caused dialect leveling, through which all the dialects became more similar. Secondly, because Irataba was a well respected leader, other Mohaves may have considered his way of speaking (and the social group who used it, maybe all of the Huttoh Pah spoke like this) to be the most prestigious, and hence emulated it causing the change to spread into all the dialects of Mohave spoken on the reservation. Interesting, no?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's really interesting! What an influential person he was! Can I assume that you will be integrating this into the article? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I wonder where it would fit?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It would make a wonderful addition to legacy. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
With this, we could rename the section Influence and legacy. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is another source that looks great.[1] Also you should read Clifton Kroeber's the Mohave as nationalist, it gives a very different account of Yara tavs later years describing him primarily as a peacemaker.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have a print copy of that Kroeber book, and it is great, but a little short on details. It is cited to a few times in the article though. I'll check out Clifton's piece. Nice work fleshing out the reservation details, BTW. I really appreciate your help! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see it is already used. I think it is very rich in details. And eye-witness details at that. We can get a lot more out of that imo.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I misstated that; what I meant was I didn't see too many usable details, as there is a lot of text attributed to him in quotes that we really couldn't use. Also, about six weeks ago Victoria told me that the source was unreliable for confirming details about the Rose–Baley Party ([2]), so I assumed that would hold true for other things. I'm not sure that was a good idea to attribute a direct quote to Irataba via Kroeber ([3]). Rationalobserver (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Maunus, do you think it's okay to quote Irataba via Chooksa homar's account to Kroeber, because SlimVirgin cautioned me against that 6 weeks ago. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it is e perfectly admissible. We quote dozens of white people who never met him about what he did and said and thought. Surely we can quote a Mohave person who actually knew him and participated in the events.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No need to argue about this, the article will progress and we will all learn something in the process. I consider FA reviews to ber a process in which editors collaboratively improve an article until they are all content with the outcome, I am not wasting any of my efforts here, but am spending them on improving the encyclopedia. I assume that that is what we are all doing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin urged me to avoid quoting Irataba from a source dated so long after his death ([4]). What do you think? Victoria said the source was unreliable. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Slimvirgin was wrong. Sure caution is warranted, but the fact that it was published in 1974 is irrelevant, the testimony was collected in the 1910s by A.L Kroeber and the person recounting it was an eyewitness. It is a reliable source as Victoria also stated above. It would set a very bad precedent to exclude this kind of source that is as close to the historical person as we can actually come. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but Victoria told me the source was unreliable for information regarding the Rose-Baley Party (see diff: [5]), and SV told me to avoid it ([6]), so I stopped using it. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually SV seems to be talking about a differnt source, since Frank Waters has nothing to do with the source I am using which is Krober and Kroeber's publication of Jo Nelson's account.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You do have a tendency to overinterpret and misinterpret critiques and comments, I think you need to work on that if you want to avoid drama like this in the future. SV is clearly not saying what you think she says in that diff. She is cautining about using Waters because his sources are unclear and he might simply have made up the quotes as a literary device. Kroeber's sources on the otherhand are perfectly clear. I don't know what Victoria meant, but I think Jo Nelson is a reliable source for his view of the Rose-Baley events, which he seems to have witnessed as well. Indeed his perspective seems required to include to maintain NPOV.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Maunus, those two have been tag-teaming me since February 15 (see the SPI report and the Rose-Baley Party talk page). But yes, that's accurate, SV was specifically cautioning against quoting Irataba from Mohave oral history, which is exactly what Chooksa homar's account is, but Victoria said the Kroeber source failed verification for a very minor point regarding the Rose-Baley Party skirmish, so I stopped using as a source. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I realize you feel that way, but for someone uninvolved it is clear that they are both giving you helpful and constructive feedback that for some reason you keep misunderstanding and overreacting to. And NO SV is not cautioning against quoting Irataba from oral history, she is saying that IF it is from oral history that should be mentioned in the source. You REALLY need to be better at reading people's actual comments. There are serious comprehension problems hindering your communication in general. Also RE Victoria, you mentioned her and attributed her a view that apparently she does not hold. Stepping in and correcting that is not wikistalking or creepy. If you two could lay griefs aside and communicate and collaborate instead of grief each other, this process would be much smoother. I really like the work you are doing which I think is really important and that is why I am participating, but I have to agree with others that you are making it more difficult than it needs to be, and that a significant part of this is your problems with communicating, and understanding and reacting to critiques. I personally do not mind having to help as actively as I am, but some people don't think that is the way a review process should work. I consider reviews a collaborative process, that involves actively teaching and learning how to write articles well - for everyone involved. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Six weeks ago Victoria accused me of being her stalker from several years ago, and she tried to get me banned from Wikipedia with lies and false accusations. Do you really think that now she wants to help me? Thanks for your help at Irataba, but please don't judge me based on my reactions to those who accused me and tried to get be banned. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think she has demonstrated that quite clearly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
And she does hold the view I claimed, and I showed you the diff where she said Kroeber failed verification for a basic fact. She also said that the date of the book proved it was unreliable, since A.L. Kroeber died before it was published. If you want to help me, please don't take sides; just remain neutral. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not taking sides, I am giving you advice on how to make the process easier for everyone involved, exactly because I am trying to help you. Victoria's comment which you removed showed that she does not hold that view. I am willing to bet that you misunderstood her comment. Just like you misunderstood SVs. As for Kroeber's death, the foreword describes why it was edited by his son and published posthumously. Since his son was also well versed in Mohave ethnography and history that should not be a problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and I struggled to explain that to her in February. Maunus, she changed her position with that comment, and the diffs are there for all to see. I'll go dig them up, because she absolutely said the source was unreliable in the year an error. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Look here: Talk:Rose–Baley Party#Kroeber & Kroeber 1973. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I've read that and the comment by Victoria (in which she makes the mistake of thinking that the 1973 edition is a reprint instead of a posthumous publication), but I dont read it as having the meaning you seem to think it does. I really hope you can put that conflict behind you and try harder to listen to peoples actual statements, instead of overinterpreting them to mean something that they dont. Take it easy. Assume good faith. Don't overreact. It would make editing and life easier for everyone. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, will do! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Great, that is the spirit! Just to make clear here are some examples of your overinterpretations: Someone says "the article uses too many instances of "according to" or "choief"" > you interpret that as meaning that according to cannot be used at all and remove all instances. Someone says a source should be used with caution, you interpret that as meaning that it cannot be used, and stop using it entirely. Someone says that we need to note if a source is based on oral history, you interpret that as meaning that oral history is not an admissible source. etc. You seem to interpret any critique in its most extreme consequence. That doesnt make for easy communication or for a good article. And don't despair. I dont often participate in FA reviews, but when I do I see them through. It may take awhile, but it will pass. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but do you realize that this is the first article that I ever wrote/created? If I don't understand all the conventions that's normal for a newbie to content creation, and the student isn't always the problem. Victoria said the Kroeber source "failed verification", which in Wikispeak means: "the source does not support what is contained in the article", but it absolutely did, and Rose's first hand account said the exact same thing. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Tower House

I really appreciate the tremendous amount of time and effort you've put into this. Would you be kind enough to have a look at Citation 40. Squeamish Ossifrage is quite right, it doesn't work and I've no idea why. If it can't be fixed, I can remove the whole sentence about the copy, but that would be a pity as it can be seen at The Higgins and is a rather nice piece. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I got this one for you folks. Malformed template plus linkrot, but I cleaned up the markup and dredged an archival copy out of the Internet Archive. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Squeamish Ossifrage! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Please comment on Talk:Taylor Swift

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taylor Swift. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Color illustration?

Would you like a color illustration of File:Irataba and Cairook.jpg?

I had uploaded the illustration to my One Drive earlier, so that's why it's there.

The HathiTrust text scan of the book is very bad--a lot of missing pages; the copy at Internet Archive is complete but the illustration plates in that scanned copy are in black and white. Be very cautious when getting images from New York Public Library; some of them have false copyright marks that show up in the EXIF data. The first upload of File:Tsuru Aoki (ca. 1915).jpg which NYPL dates from 1915 has a false copyright notation in the EXIF-copyright NYPL. The photo is really from 1914 or earlier. Take a look at the file's talk page. We hope (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this! I have a lot to learn when it comes to images, so I appreciate your help! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Simon Burchell, what do you make of the concern with NYPL? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that some websites will try to claim blanket copyright on everything they host. There are very little grounds for being able to claim copyright on pre-1923 images in the US. Some useful pages are:

At any rate, even if NYPL is giving erroneous publication data, 1914 or 1915 is irrelevant — the key year under US copyright law is publication before 1923. I hope this helps — but do ask across at Commons. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Simon Burchell and We hope, how do I cull from this treasure trove ([7])? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

OK-their images come from a number of places-Gallery "All images are the property of the repository institution. They should not be reproduced for commercial purposes without the express permission of the repository institution". You'll need to find out who owns the image(s) you're interested in and what their policy is on use. Re: public domain, if it can't be used for commercial purposes if desired, then it isn't in the public domain. We hope (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. One thing I noticed is that many of these are NPS pictures taken and published pre-1923. So is it possible that the site is claiming to own all these when they don't? Some of them must be PD. Don't you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry--didn't see this until now. Can you point out some of the NPS photos for me? If they were taken by NPS and that connection can be proven, they're in the public domain because they were taken in the course of duty by a government employee. We hope (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess there isn't a NPS filter, just one for Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Still, many of the collections there were created pre-1923. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 2 page PDF The Ireteba Peaks Wilderness (see Eldorado Mountains) is named for him. The brochure was produced by the US Bureau of Land Management. Everything in it--text and photos--are in the public domain because it was created by a US government employee in the course of his/her work . Tag for it would be {{PD-USGov-BLM}}. We hope (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That's awesome! Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
What would a proper citation to this brochure look like? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
url is the link to the pdf title is Ireteba Peaks Wilderness author is Bureau of Land Management. We hope (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Have a look around here at the NPS pages for Chaco. Everything I've seen at the NPS site gives no indication that they were taken by anyone but an NPS employee. We hope (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have gleaned several pics from there, but I was hoping to find some pre-excavation ones from the 1800s. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes using tineye can help find more copies of a photo and more information about it. Just copy the url of the photo into tineye; it will produce a list of hits which you can investigate. We hope (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This ought to help out:

A renewal check for copyright on the book was done for 1963 and 1964. There were renewals for other person named Hewett and one for Edgar Hewett, but not for this book title. He renewed Ancient Life in Mexico and Central America in 1964. Everything in the book is PD because of copyright not renewed. I would copy and paste the check given here if you use any photos from it as proof the book wasn't renewed. We hope (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That's great; thanks for helping me out! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
We hope, I've been trying to find a digital copy of The Significance of the Dated Prehistory of Chetro Ketl, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico (1934) by Florence M. Hawley, so I don't have to purchase the rare and expensive report. Can you locate this one too? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This one didn't turn up at HathiTrust but there are others with text and photos. After I lest these for you, I'll try for this book in other spots.
  • A renewal search was done in books for the years 1972 and 1973. There were no renewals for the Author Harold S. Gladwin. The entire book is in the public domain.
  • Look here-this is what turned up at HathiTrust when I searched for your title. Lots of newer information published by the Department of the Interior in the list and there are many photos. These would be PD because they were prepared by a government employee in this course of duty. Will see who might have a copy of your book. We hope (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This is just wonderful! I've spent more than $100 this month on Chaco sources, and I'm not complaining because I love books, but it's fantastic to find some digital ones in PD! Hope you don't mind scrounging for the Hawley source, but it would save me $55 if I could find a free version. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's your book at the New York State Library--it downloads as a PDF and is listed as being PD. :) We hope (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I used WorldCat to find the copy--it was just luck that there was one online. WorldCat can be useful even if there's no online copy because it tells you where copies can be found. You can either go to a library that has the book or it gives you enough information to work out a loan through your local library. We hope (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That Hawley source is fantastic, I can't wait to read it! Since the report is PD, can I adapt or copy her drawings for use in articles? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You should be able to just copy everything that's in the book. Give me a minute to run a copyright renewal check on the author and I'll list the findings here--everything should be able to go as copyright not renewed. We hope (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
A renewal search was done in books for the years 1961 and 1952. There were renewals for others with the surname of Hawley but none for Florence M. Hawley. There were also no renewals during this time frame for Florence Ellis (Hawley's married name). There's no evidence of the copyright being renewed for this book. We hope (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
She might have renewed it in her married name – Ellis. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chetro Ketl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Navajo. 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) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank You!

Am always glad to help when I can. Just started using HathiTrust recently-tracked down a copy of John Warne Gates' bio there. Still continue to be surprised at the wealth of material they have in the way of both books and periodicals. The site has helped with many articles in the short time I've been using it. We hope (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: copyright tags

this is {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Cite the New York State Library link as your source, give the title of the book and author, as well as publisher and year of publication plus the page you took the drawing from. Then copy the copyright search I did last night from above as proof there was a search for renewal and none was found. (The links are to the UPenn copyright books so they can be checked if anyone wants to.) Do the same thing for any other images you might want to use from the book. We hope (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How does this look (File:Excavation map of Chetro Ketl by Florence M. Hawley (1934).png)? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This is 100% right! :-) We hope (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your help! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: book

Here's the information about it; it's from 1856 so this would be {{PD-US}}. No need to do a copyright search at all as it's well over 100 years old. Just give a link to the book and to the "about the book" Google link so anyone who might want to check can see that it's from 1856. Anything you find (and like) in it can be used as it went into the PD circa 1923! :) We hope (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That's great, but how do I find a version to download? Or should I just do a screenshot of it? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me see if HathiTrust has a copy (most often they do). The entire book can be downloaded at Google but in PDF form, so you'd need to get the copy from that. HathiTrust offers the option of downloading the entire book or just the page or pages you want as PDFs. Hang on a second and I'll look. We hope (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I just did a cut from that preview screen, which yielded a url to the image that you can save from! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
This is great news because previously with Google, it was "all or nothing" on the free books! You needed to download the entire book as a PDF. Internet Archive and HathiTrust were offering single pages if desired. The copy of the book at IA is from the same library as Google's but something has gone wrong with the reader at IA--when you turn pages, it keeps blinking and some pages are just blank. We hope (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I just sort of stumbled on that, but it's pretty handy! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Does this look right: File:Whipple with the Mohave.jpg? Is it possible to determine the author? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the illustration on this page-this one is Balduin Möllhausen and I think he did all the color plates in this book. The beginning of the book is dated 1953-1854. Balduin Möllhausen traveled with Whipple at the time; this page indicates this was Whipple's journey. We hope (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought so! Thanks for double checking that! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Photos

It looks like the library really doesn't care to have their photos used for anything other than personal or scholarly use. I grabbed a photo from the list at random: Mojave House and Women

  • Publication Rights Images in this collection are for scholarly research; please review the Huntington Library's copyright information."

There's a similar situation with railroad photos from Otto Perry. Upon his death in 1970, all of his photos were donated to the Denver Public Library who now restricts them. I know that the rule re: his DPL photos has been that they must be considered non free use because the library doesn't want them used for commercial purposes. When something is really in the PD, it can be used for any purpose you like--there can be no "strings" or restrictions on where one can or can't use the photo. I would be dubious about this since the library did not simply say the photos are available to everyone for any purpose or license them with Creative Commons licenses to reflect that. There are CC licenses that restrict commercial use, and we have to consider those to be non-free. We hope (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Back story on Irataba which might be of interest

Charles D. Poston was the Indian agent for the territory where Irataba lived and told the following stories about him. The John Moss mentioned was shown where to find a gold mine in El Dorado canyon by Irataba. Moss was able to sell the mine and made thousands of dollars from the sale. Moss wanted to show his appreciation to Irataba and asked Poston's permission to take him East and show him a fine time. (This looks to be how he went to Washington and New York).

While Irataba was away with Moss, Poston asked Moss to have a photo taken of Irataba by a good photographer and send it to Poston. When the photo arrived, Poston displayed it in the window of the Indian office, thinking Irataba's people would be happy to see it. However, the reverse happened-people became sad upon seeing the photo. Poston didn't know what was wrong until someone explained that it was thought that the Americans killed Irataba while was away and the photo was his ghost.

When Irataba arrived home, he asked Poston for permission to make a public speech, to which Poston agreed. Irataba spoke to his people for about 2 hours; someone translated the speech and it developed that after his photo was seen, people believed he was dead and divided up his wives and property. Only one wife with a small son remained and she had returned to her people. Poston sent messengers to bring the wife and child back; Irataba is said to have lived the rest of his life with the remaining wife and young son.

The tags for these refs (that need to be added) are:

|via = [[Newspapers.com]]}} {{Open access}}</ref>

We hope (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, if this is accurate and reliable it's great stuff, but who is the author of the first story, and who is W.W. Jermaine? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
W. W. Jermaine is the person who wrote the story for the Minneapolis Tribune. Let me look around a bit more as I've seen other accounts of what Poston told in different newspapers and different years. The Minneapolis Tribune story ran when Poston died in 1902--the other circa 1891. I might be able to get an author's name from another newspaper re: the 1891 account. We hope (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • another copy of the 1902 story written by H. C. Stevens of the Oshkosh Daily Northwestern.

There are other copies of the uncredited story--here's another. The man who was relating the story is Charles Debrille Poston. The uncredited stories are all exactly the same and appear in different newspapers. I went through the books Poston wrote (the ones online) but found nothing in them re: his contact with Irataba. We hope (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I'm leaning towards unreliable at this point. Do you think that's fair? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This is entirely up to you, but you might want to consider adding it as a footnote due to that. We hope (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The fact that Poston didn't include any of this in his published works makes me wonder about the provenance. He certainly knew Irataba well, and this would be great to include if it can be verified, but I wonder why Devereux, Woodward, and Sherer missed this; indeed, everyone missed this until 1902, a full 28 years after Irataba died. What do you think, Dr. Blofeld and Simon Burchell? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say certainly worth mentioning that he claimed that. Perhaps Maunus could offer an opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I would put in something along the lines that "an uncredited story current in a number of newspapers in (year) related that..." It is published, so it can be used with caution, just don't relate it as The Truth. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Simon, include it but without passing it as true.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
But how can I relate sketchy details from Poston via W. W. Jermaine without mentioning either of them by name and still not pass this off as truth? This would require an "according to", and the way the FAC is going now I won't be adding any of those. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you are overreacting/misreacting to some of those comments. Saying that there is too many of something doesnt mean you have to remove all of them, or that rmeoving all of them is better. I would write something along the lines, of "Poston later told a friend an anecdote about the Mohave's reaction to seeing a photo of Irataba while he was away. According to Poston, the Mohave thought that the photographic likeness meant that Irataba had been killed by the Whites, and they proceeded to divide his goods and wives between them. When Irataba arrived and found his possessions and family gone, Poston had to help him get back one of his wives who had left to live with her Hualapai relatives."·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it have to be something like "According to journalist W. W. Jermaine, writing in blah blah blah, Poston said ..."? Anyway, I'm just burned out on the back and forth with 99% criticisms and .0000001 encouragement. I'm not in the mood to add this, as I keep getting blamed for everything that's not 100% perfect in the article. If you would be willing to add it that would be great, but I'm just not up to it today. Plus, my instinct says it's not reliable, and it's most likely made up. If Irataba had wives he would have likely had a son to succeed him, but he was succeeded by his nephew, which means he had no male heir despite the source saying he had a son. Both Woodward and Deveroux missed this, which is unlikely don't you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, the stuff about the picture and ghosts seems dubious and culturally insensitive. It makes them sound like idiots that can't tell a picture in a window from a spirit. And where is the picture of him in his regalia, because the image has not been found by any of us who have been scrounging for weeks? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is the photo in question photo. A magic lantern slide at the Smithsonian. We hope (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That sure looks like him alright, and it's a cool picture, but I still have an issue with presenting the story that the Mohave thought the picture was his ghost. I think we would need more than one source for that, and in light of some reviewer concerns about tone, I see this as exacerbating the issue. Also, I still wonder why a man with sons was succeeded by his nephew, which doesn't make sense. E.g., Homoseh quahote was succeeded by his son, then his grandson. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't tell you the answers for that. If we look at people in other times, producing a photo of someone in Salem during Colonial days, would probably have sent you to the stake, as it would have been something not understood by those people in that time. They might have been able to work the "stealing of spirits" (the photo) into your witchery conviction. Re: succession, again-other cultures. The Aga Khan chose his eldest gransdon to succeed him rather than his playboy son, Ali, who technically was next in line to the throne. We hope (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Those are good points, but in light of at least one reviewer's insistence on avoiding that type of stuff (we can't even say "chief" in the article) I am reluctant to add this, as it would just cause another exhausting debate. Having said that, if anyone else adds it I won't object or revert, but I'm not comfortable adding this, so I won't. I hope that's acceptable. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The picture is cool though, but are we certain that it's Irataba? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Everything I know about the photo is from the Smithsonian. We hope (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks legit to me. Can we add it to commons? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The down side to this is here: Unauthorized Uses Require Prior Written Permission This looks like the rider Denver Public Library has placed on the Otto Perry railroad photos. It's also similar to a CC "non-commercial" license, where you're able to do anything with the image but use it commercially, if desired. Our rules only allow "non commercial" photos to be used as non-free images and those can't go to Commons. We hope (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Thanks for looking into it, and thanks for helping out with the FAC image review. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Something else that might be of interest

The book is The Blue Tattoo by Margot Miffin (University of Nebraska Press-2009}. This claims to be the first scholarly bio of Olive Oatman.

In it, it's claimed that the Oatman girls were not slaves to the Mojave and that when Olive learned Irataba was in New York, she asked to meet with him, as she was not unhappy while living with the Mojave. It's also said that the chin tattoo was not that of a slave.

Thanks for doing so much great research for Dr. B and I. We appreciate it! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
150th anniversary of CRIT Can you use this too? :-) We hope (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll see if there is anything worth including. While you're here, I'd like to invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irataba/archive2. If you are too busy or disinterested in FAC reviews I'll understand, but I'd love to get your input there. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me try to get over there a little later on today/tonight. We hope (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Look at the wonderful addition I made using the Parker Pioneer source ([8])! Thanks for that! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Ah-oochy Kah-ma and Ireteba.jpg If you're interested in this, I can take it to the Graphics Lab photo workshop for some restoration. We hope (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested! That's a great find! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It goes really well in the next to last section! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
OK-request is in :) We hope (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You're the best! Thanks! Did you happen to come across this image anywhere? I believe it's one of Balduin Möllhausen's drawings engraved by one T. Sinclair. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen it before but it might take me a bit of time to find it again. I think this was in one of the Army reports from the travels he made. Let me see what I can do about getting hold of an unwatermarked copy. We hope (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That's great because they're giving him credit for what he did even now! File:Mojave Indians.jpg Here's your illustration. It was in the US War Department-Whipple book. The Google scan is about the best for illustrations but it looks as though the Lyon (France) Public Library may have combined more than one report in their scan; and so you simply need to start at the beginning and scroll your way until you find what you're looking for. :) We hope (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, We hope! I hope one day I can repay some of your endless generosity! 22:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You might want to take a look through the old newspapers here. There's 110 hits for Irataba. I was trying to find the source of the Fort Mojave file and ran into it. We may need to drop it; it was taken from a 1995 book which credited the Arizona State Library with the image. The problem is that it's not online, thus we have no date or creator. We hope (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The Galazy pp 38-42. The Galaxy, Volume 10 Publisher W.C. and F.P. Church, 1870 A description of Irataba in his later years--his hair remained dark and he walked with a walking stick because of an old wound. We hope (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chetro Ketl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arroyo. 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) 11:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

  • You should step back from Victorias talkpage now, and see how she responds to your attemt at reaching out. It is possible that she is not interested in "talking it out like women do". I wouldnt be personally, I would just say "well, lets move on" and then waste no more verbiage. If that is her choice then you should respect that as a positive way of moving on to more constructive activities.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to any reviewing administrator: If you are not familiar with this case or this user, please do not unblock this user without consulting with me first. As, there is a huge backstory to what led up to this six month block. (I'll also make note that Rationalobserver was well aware that the block would be 6 months in length, as she was directly told it would be so — by myself back in February.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Further note from blocking administrator: For Rationalobserver to claim she thought some form of "friendship" was beginning, is absolutely ludicrous. This edit, from the very same day, I think proves to anyone with half of a brain that Rationalobserver had no intentions whatsoever of building a "friendship" with Victoria. She may have fooled me once, when she told me she'd focus on content and not deliberately go into contentious areas where she had a bad history with other users, but she's most certainly not fooling me again. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Coffee, Victoria followed me to the Irataba review, otherwise I would never have interacted with her ever again. Did you know that? Look at my last 1,000 edits, and tell me I wasn't building content. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
And by "followed" I just mean that I was staying away from her as best as I could, but she forced the interaction at the Irataba peer review. In February, Victoria accused me of being ItsLassieTime, who had stalked and harassed her several years ago, so it's quite strange to me that she would stop by the peer review initiated by someone who she believes is her old stalker. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This is a misunderstanding. I was tying to reconcile with Victoria, not bother her. Look at her responses and edit summaries. I should be unblocked until Victoria confirms that she considered my comments harassment, because right now I am blocked for harassing someone who hasn't actually said that I was harassing them. I honestly thought it was the beginning of a friendship, and if you look at Victoria's responses and contribs you'll see that she kept saying she'd answer more later. Further she restored some of my comments that I had removed and responded to them. She responded to my comments four times ([9],[10],[11],[12]), and not once was there any hint that I was being inappropriate or that she wanted me to stop. It wasn't harassment, she restored it and responded to it and said "more later". Further, my first behavior block was 2 weeks, so to go from 2 weeks to 6 months for my second behavior block is utterly absurd and spectacularly unfair given what others routinely get away with.

Decline reason:

You unblock request does not indicate that you realize how your behavior was disruptive. Chillum 04:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock request withdrawn: I made a mistake by posting to Victoria's talk page. I see that now. I shouldn't have reverted her comment at my page then gone to hers with a wall of text. I was honestly trying to work things out with her, but that was absolutely the wrong way to go about it. I should have asked her to have that discussion at my talk only if she wanted to, and if she didn't want to I should have dropped it and never complained about her again. I'm not a bad person, and I have no ill-will towards her, so nothing I did was intentionally hurtful. The learning curve has been difficult for me, and I've made several major mistakes. I see now that I've been personalizing the disagreements about content, and that has clouded my judgment and led to some disruption at talk pages, which I am sincerely regretful about. If you unblock me I promise to never argue with anyone at their talk page again, as I see now how that disrupts the project, which I honestly don't want to do. I'm here to build content, not argue with editors. I know Coffee said the next block would be six months, but I still say that's excessive and not true to the concept of escalating blocks. Rationalobserver (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. All I know is that Rational Observer has done a lot of good work on here. It's a pity that this has been allowed to escalate. I don't think it was a good idea posting to Victoria highlighting her earlier deficiencies in reviewing it, as FA reviewers often ask for things which are contrary to what others ask for. Still, six months is rather extreme in my opinion, at fault here or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, I'm confused as to why you pinged Victoria on this page asking for her input and then removed her replies (and your ping comments) saying that she couldn't stay away from you. Do you want to talk to her or not? I'm 99% sure you mean well and aren't out to make a mess, but I think you should at least decide on a course of action and stick to it. SlimVirgin, removing comments from one's own talk page is allowed and if admins really need to see something they can check the history, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to restore Victoria's comments. And I just got hit with an edit conflict because RO reverted SlimVirgin; can you two please not fight over this? ekips39 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I pinged Victoria last night before I realized that she wanted me blocked. I honestly thought this was a big misunderstanding, but since she's made it clear that she thinks I'm a sock I have nothing more to say to her ... ever. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
ekips39, will you please take a look at the thread in question? Victoria was encouraging me and telling me that she'd reply more later: "Give me a chance to finish up work before getting back on the others — haven't read them yet" and "I'm cooking supper at the moment. I'll be back — but not immediately". Are these the responses of someone who is being harassed? I had no indication that she wanted me to stay away, and had she said that I would have done so immediately. Maunus took it as a genuine attempt to reconcile, and that's what it was. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, this all sounds fair. I can't really tell where things went wrong, but it looks as if everything was ok until something blew up. A number of comments from you have ascribed more or less malicious motives to her and I don't see how that was called for; perhaps that was what eventually snagged -- in any case, at this point she does seem to think you are disruptive to her, and were I in your position I would take her most recent comments at face value. ekips39 (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely take her comments at face value, and I promise to never mention her again if I'm unblocked. I'm shocked that she felt this way, really, I had no idea. I made a huge mistake, but I'm not a disruptive editor. More than 60% of my edits are to article space. All I want is to build content related to Native Americans, and I don't want to take part in any drama or disruption. Look at my contribs before the SPI, and you'll see that I was working hard at content creation. Look at my last 1,000 contribs, and you'll see the same thing. I deserve one last chance, as other have been given at least that and more. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I won't officially decline your request, but will suggest that you wait a few months before making any further requests. I've seen repeated requests result in the removal of talk page use. Just a suggestion. — Ched :  ?  19:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this on your talk page ([13]): after discussion with admin. Coffee, RO agreed to certain terms in order to be unblocked
That's not accurate. Coffee unblocked me ([14]), then an hour and half later, after significant peer pressure from several editors, warned me about a six month block ([15]). There were no prior negotiations, discussion, or deal. They unilaterally upped the ante from 2 weeks to 6 months an hour and a half after unblocking me. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: and @Ched: Not commenting on RO's past behaviour, but do you really think her comments to Victoria were harsh enough for a six month block? That's pretty extreme IMO. I did previously tell RO to try to avoid commenting to people like Eric, Victoria and Montana and get on with editing but she ignored my advice. The thing is, can we really afford to lose somebody who produces an article like Chetro Ketl every few weeks? I'd recommend reducing it to a few weeks and then an interaction ban between RO and Victoria and RO given strong words to refrain from commenting on others. In fairness though Victoria you have given RO quite a hard time with her article work, I can see why she might have got frustrated. I do think it's annoying though when you issue a reply here and she deleted your posts. It makes it seem like she's not worth wasting time over. I'm not convinced that an interaction ban on Victoria and RO would solve the situation as RO has a habit of taking things personally and then speaking her mind. But I do think the six month block needs some discussion. I think of it as purely how much decent editing work we'll miss out on in six months from her.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. B, Victoria's replies contained further accusations about socking, and that's why I removed them. She's been accusing me for 6 weeks now, and it's not helping anything. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The length of the block was decided beforehand by Coffee (whom I'm pinging so as to invite him to comment on this) and should probably have been discussed at the time considering the objections it's raised. We couldn't know exactly what would have led to this block before now, but IMHO the length should not be inflexible precisely because we couldn't know, as not all comments/behaviour are equal even if the overall pattern is the same. ekips39 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell taught me about blocks, and he told me that in no uncertain terms blocks were not to be used solely to punish editors for making mistakes, but only to protect the project. I have pledged to never mention Victoria again and agree to an interaction ban between us. The project is in no danger from me, but I have created several articles in the last month, including Kin Ya'a, Seck-a-hoot, and Cairook. I've also written Chetro Ketl in the last 30 days and been intimately involved in the Irataba peer reviews and FAC nominations. I've been busy building content, and all I'm asking is that you let me do that. I'll never edit her page again or mention her to anyone under any circumstances. I promise. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with your promise and I'd really like to see you able to edit articles again soon -- you do an impressive amount of work on them. Unfortunately (or perhaps not), it's not for me to decide. ekips39 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Myth: RO made a deal with Coffee prior to being unblocked

I see that this has been repeated several times around the Wiki, so I want to dispel this here, as that's not accurate. Coffee unblocked me ([16]), then an hour and half later, after significant peer pressure from several editors, warned me about a six month block ([17]). There were no prior negotiations, discussion, or deal. They unilaterally upped the ante from 2 weeks to 6 months an hour and a half after unblocking me, and I did not agree to up the sentence from 2 weeks to 6 months as a condition of being unblocked. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the diff people were using to say you agreed [[18] and the argument can be made you were only promising to avoid Drmies and Eric Corbetts page but I doubt that the admin will listen to the technicalities aspect. They seldom do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
All I mean is that people are saying that I was blocked, then before getting unblocked I agreed to put my self at risk of a six month block, but that's not what happened. I agreed to avoid two specific people and was unblocked based on my unblock request. There was no prior discussion with Coffee where I agreed to the put myself in jeopardy of getting a six-month block in exchange for getting unblocked. If that had been the case, I would have just served the two weeks. I was unblocked, then 90 minutes later Coffee warned me that he'd block me for 6 months on the next offense, which, as I as I said, violates the principle of escalating blocks. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou

I much appreciated your assistance at difficult times during the Tower House FAC. You made quite an effort to help and plough through some of the massive lists, making the arduous task easier.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Dr. B! Rationalobserver (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Why....

I just want to know why in heavens name would you post on someone's talkpage who tried to get you banned for socking. You cant change everyone Rational, I help a-lot of people online with their issues and have done so in the past and know this all too well. The six month block is a major slap but I hope you can take something from this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. That was really poor judgment on my part. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I hope you know too that editors watch other editor's talk-pages, this wasn't just some random run to the admin because RO was causing a disruption thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The important thing is that I readily admit that I deserved a block, and I should have known better. All I want to do is build content, so if there is a next time I'll walk away from my keyboard before making any comments about editors. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
On the bright side, I dusted off my Ramirez and played some Bach today. So I think the break will do me some good, and if I can come back I'll be refocused and reinvigorated to build content sans the drama. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you trying to be me haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Well im sorry to see it be this way, I think that 6 months is on the harsh side. You have been editing well in a-lot of articles and feel it is a bit of double jeopardy being blocked by the same admin twice. Also it depends on the editor and the context, there is nothing wrong for example with giving constructive criticism but not to someone you know you have had issues with in the past.- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of Bach, a good piece [19] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Love me some Bach, especially the Brandenburg Concertos. It's nice to hear from you, BTW; thanks for stopping by! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Welcome! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for the reducing/unblock of Rationalobserver

Various users have commented on the extreme six month block of Rationalobserver; and I've witnessed numerous users who agree that a six month is far too excessive for a valuable user who contributes greatly to content creation here. I don't expect her to get unblocked easily but I'm sure a discussion can be made regarding a compromise for the block to be shortened for at least two weeks. Can we resotre our faith in the admin community? Half a year is too intense, Dr. Blofeld and Eric even said so themselves and we know some users have had disagreements with RO. I'm conifident that a compromise can be made. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the block duration should have been made by Coffee as it is biased seeing he was involved. I don't oppose a block if admin feel it is justified but 6 months as said is too much. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, 6 months is very extreme I think. I understand that Coffee thinks it displays he is a strong admin who respects other admins, but 6 months is a very long time on wikipedia. I ask for a neutral admin to review this. I don't think anything longer than a month is warranted here. But RO really needs to learn to stop the comments directed at people... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes I agree, but as you know editors direct comments towards other people all the time here on Wikipedia either directly or indirectly that just nudges the line. It would be a wonderful place if everyone just stuck to editing and refrained from making snide comments about others on their talk-pages but that sadly isn't reality. Rational's biggest mistake in my opinion as I said above was thinking she could be friends with someone who tried to get her banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I have learned my lesson, and I won't comment about editors when I should be commenting about content. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • IMO the length of the blog should depend on what RO's previous account is. If it is an experienced account that has had previous grief with any of the involved editors here, then 6 months may be justified beause that would strongly imply malicious deceit, rather than a clean start. If it is not and RO is truly a newbie trying to learn the FAC ropes then I think 6 months is too much. So RO, I think you should probably let the administrator know your previous account so that fact can figure into any decisions about block length.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Maunus, I declared my previous account to the ArbCom in February, and they acknowledged that fact at the SPI that Victoria opened on me (see the bottom of this section). Rationalobserver (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If I had previous experience at FAC, would I have made mistakes with sourcing like I have? Look at Irataba before I had any outside input ([20]). Does it really look like the work of an experienced returning editor who had already been to FAC? Using Frank Waters was a noob mistake, and so was over attributing everything and over quoting. But if I was as experienced as some people are claiming there would be no progression in my editing from bad to decent. E.g., compare Chetro Ketl to earlier versions of Irataba, and you will see a natural progression that wouldn't be there if I wasn't new to FAC. If I'm given another chance, I will continue to grow, and that growth will be obvious. I promise to stop taking things personally and stop commenting on editors. I deserve another chance, but I also deserve to move on without the constant baseless accusations. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Manus RO has not ever used sock accounts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT

Coffee, per WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools ... Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

  • Will you please discuss the length of this block with me here? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Coffee, will you please discuss the length of this block with me here? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I will bring up the issue on WP:AN later today, you most likely will still be blocked though. Hopefully it will be at a reduced length so I am not sure if I could push for an unblock here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I want to test my fates at An/I. I just want to discuss the length of the block with the blocking admin, and I believe that he owes me that. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well you so far have pinged him twice, if he doesn't respond I wouldn't do it again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Isn't he required by policy to explain his admin actions to me? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Im not sure but I wouldn't assume that, technically you may be right if he doesn't what are you going to do? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be on again in about an hour, hopefully he does respond to your request, if not though then what options do you have? (Sorry to put it this way) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologize; that's an honest assessment. Obviously, I have no choice but to serve the block. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I'll ask for an unblock next week, and if that fails I'll appeal to ArbCom, as the length is excessive. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I still think WP:AN though is best before Arbcom, right now your fate has been decided the only thing worse facing you is an indef block which you pretty much already have currently with the WP:STANDARDOFFER already accepted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Coffee hasn't been on WP since April 3rd, so there's no point in continuing to ping him. I'm sure he'll revisit later. An uninvolved admin refused to remove the block or reduce it. Perhaps it might be a good time for you to begin work on your next article, off-line? Wait a month or so and then do another unblock request. Karanacs (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Karanacs. Serve out a month or so before submitting another unblock request. It's only another three weeks or so anyway now. Eric Corbett 18:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I accept this advice, and I'll do as suggested. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for creating Irataba
Hi Rationalobserver, I just wanted to thank you for creating the article on Irataba, which is an immensely important addition to the encyclopedia. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree! He was an important person that deserves to be remembered, though I am a little torn as Mohave tradition at the time of his death was to never again mention the dead. So I hope he understands! Thanks for adding so much wonderful context, and for correcting the sourcing bias/mistakes. This has been a team effort that we should all be proud of! I've learned a lot through this process, and hopefully I will be able to create more content like this, as our current coverage of Native America is sorely lacking. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Maunus, if you want the Woodward bio I could email it to you in a PDF. Just email me and I'll reply with it. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sitting in the special collections section of the library now looking at it, it is less impressive than I hoped. I thought it was a book, not a short article. I think there are some clear deficiencies with it, especially its reliance on news accounts. The entire idea that Irataba lost standing in the tribe when they thought he lied about what he had seen seems to come from the obituary in the Prescott Miner that says he was considered by his tribe as "the biggest liar on the Colorado". I think we should be cautious not to uncritically circulate this version of events.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Until I created the Wikipedia article, Woodward's was the only bio on Irataba in the whole world, so I'm not sure what other sources he could have used, as they didn't exist in 1953. Nevertheless, I agree that it's not great, but it is the first such attempt to write a bio on Irataba, and for that it has value. Regarding the issue of "waning influence", isn't it almost implied by the fact that he was made head chief but later lost that distinction? I.e., to go from being the elected leader of 3,500 people to just 800 is a loss of influence. Isn't it? But I think I understand what you mean, at least in general. Have you looked at Devereux, George (1951). "Mohave Chieftainship in Action: A Narrative of the First Contacts of the Mohave Indians with the United States". Plateau 23 (3): 33–43? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think Scrivner is a poor source? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand that, and that is why I thanked you for your creation of the article. By doing so you created a possibility for making a better biography that draws on sources that are newer and a more modern approach to how people and events in the past are represented. Waning influence seems to be simply a meme that appeared due to the fact that Whites did not understand that by forcing half the Mohaves onto the CRIT reservation they had caused a split in the tribe. They did not understand that his influence did not wane but that it was restricted to his followers and he probably never held the kind of political authority over the Mohave that a European President or king holds over their people, and Homoseh quahote was not his "main rival" they were leaders of political factions among the Mohave who had different ideas about how to engage with whites. And nope, I have not used at that Devereux title, that looks promising, though as far as I understand Devereux is considered a somewhat problematic ethnographer because of his penchant for freudian interpretations of Mohave ideas and practices. I will look at the article nonetheless.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a great explanation of the issue with Woodward following newspapers, and I agree with what you said about Devereux, but Devereux's article is based on four accounts of one of Irataba's granddaughters, Tcatc, so that's cool and informative. What's the trouble with Scrivner? He's a PhD and a Native American. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, as far as I could see he is a missionary, and the account seems semi-fictionalized. What field was his Phd in?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I think anthropology, as Mohave People was his doctoral dissertation. He wrote another book about the Chickasaw that is frequently cited to: ([21]). Rationalobserver (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm that is interesting. Maybe his dissertation has something more to offer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok I think not. I found a review of the published version of the dissertation which butchers it. "Poorly researched" "often incorrect" are some phrases from the review.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Btw. Are you sure that is a dissertation? His obituary does not describe him as a Phd or academic of any sort[22] and elsewhere he is called a "retired missionary and school superintendent".[23]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I found it referenced as a dissertation in a newspaper from newspaper.com, but I don't remember which one unfortunately. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Fwiw, that review is from a grad student, not a professional critic or history scholar, but they do make some good points about the work's shortcomings. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

I've been blocked now for three weeks, and I've learned my lesson

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:

Specifically, I've learned that I should never edit a user's talk page while frustrated. I understand how doing that might disrupt their enjoyment of Wikipedia, and I realize that I also dislike it when people come to my talk and make disparaging comments about me or my edits. The last thing I ever want to do is discourage anyone from contributing to Wikipedia, and I pledge to never again make heated comments at talk pages. I promise to walk away from the keyboard whenever I feel frustrated with an editor's comments or actions, and I won't ever repeat the mistakes that got me blocked. More importantly, I understand that what I did was disruptive, and I acknowledge that mistake. I should have known better, and I sincerely apologize and promise to never repeat that lapse of judgment. Another important lesson that I've learned is that I must stop taking constructive criticism personally. I made the mistake of assuming bad faith on the part of some editors who were only trying to help me improve an article. This is a collaborative project, and all of us should work together for the same purpose. I think I was insecure and nervous about my first article, and I took that anxiety out on some folks who were only trying to help. I promise to stop personalizing content disputes and pledge to assume good faith on the part of others. I deserve another chance to become a productive member of this community, and if unblocked I agree to refrain from the disruptive behaviors that earned me this block. Rationalobserver (talk) 5:08 pm, 23 April 2015, last Thursday (4 days ago) (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

There appears to be a fairly solid community consensus below to unblock, and absent any response from User:Coffee (who's edited several times in the last few days and so is presumably aware of this discussion) I'm commuting this to time served and removing the block. Yunshui 雲水 12:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm struck by two things here. First, the block log jumping from 2 weeks to 6 months, which seems bit excessive, regardless of the user. Next, RO has been a bit impatient, but given the duration, I can overlook that. I'm not going to personally review the block, RO and I have chatted several times, RO has bitten off my head before, we worked things out, and such, and I think I can be objective, but good common sense says I should just opine and leave it to someone more independent. I've seen RO make a journey since coming here. She isn't done, but there has been progress, and maybe we should just unblock, offer some guidance and see what happens. RO is very capable of doing good things, and I'm convinced that her goals are really to do just that. She's gotten into some scraps, but I think she is trying to really put that behind her. Unblock, and we will see. I would warn her that this is getting very close to the last bit of free good faith some are going to give her, but I'm hopeful she will put that faith to good work. So without comment to how we got here, I would support an unblock at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. I am absolutely no supporter of RO - indeed I think I've suggested before that some of her edits are ridiculous and that she be blocked - but two weeks to six months is overkill. I wouldn't have any problem with giving her more rope, on the basis that this really is a last chance to reform. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I also completely agree that RO should be unblocked now, it was unjustified and trigger happy to have her blocked for six months, whatever its outcome... I think everyone on both sides of the fence are supporting an unblock, so let's see how it goes? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Many people would quit after getting a 6 month block and the duration of that block doesn't fit with what transpired here. I never thought that the disruption was intentional; RO just went a bit "overboard" with the talk page posts/pings. I've seen obvious vandal and troll accounts blocked for lesser periods of time than 6 months, with the hope that these people might decide to do some constructive editing after it was over. This is a productive editor with good intentions who just needs to remember to take a few deep breaths from time to time. We hope (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There is, as has been pointed out, a significant history here, and a long block, after a warning, is IMHO reasonable. If it is thought, looking at the thread, that the imposition of a six month block has worked as a wake-up call, which may be the case, I would agree to a shortening of the block time to two or three months; but I feel that only two weeks, let alone an immediate unblock, is not appropriate.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been blocked for three weeks now, and this is only my second time I was ever blocked for behavior, so there is no long history. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The thing is RO I'm not sure you really have learned your lesson. If we unblock you now a week or two down the road you'll be taking swipes at Victoria and Montana again and we'll go around in circles. I agree with Black kite and We hope that when you concentrate and avoid people you're productive and that 6 months is a ridiculous block, but you have shown several occasions that you just can't stay away even when strongly advised not to. I spent a fair amount of time telling you not to react to the others and what did you do? I think I'd like to see a mutual interaction ban at least between RO and Victoria, Slim Virgin and Montanabw before RO continues here as I can see them highlighting a flaw in your article and then you saying you're being harassed again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have learned my lesson, Dr. B., and I would absolutely agree to a mutual interaction ban between myself, Victoria, Montanabw, and SlimVirgin, but isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There definitely needs to be some sort of mutual interaction ban here otherwise it's not going to work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I can agree to stay away from them all you want, indeed they are the last people on here that I ever want to interact with again, but that's not up to me. They have been forcing interactions with me, not the other way around. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If you need to be unblocked to propose an interaction ban then I support that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I would support a mutual interaction ban with those users. From what I've seen (and I may well have missed stuff), those other editors don't seem to be the problem. They've been able to focus primarily on content. It's RO who has tended to skew towards the disruption. Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

All I meant was that I would never proactively seek interaction with them, but I agree that, sans an IB, I need to respond better when they interact with me. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If there's no interaction ban I can't see it working long term in all honesty. There's too much ill feeling I think. By all means unblock Rational Dennis and allow her to continue, but when her and Victoria and Montana are in a dispute again within a couple of weeks I'll say I told you so. I hope I'm proved wrong.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel here that RO should be unblocked as well and a 2 way IBAN put into place between her and Montana. Unless Rational is itching for an indef block I know she wont interact with Victoria as I have told her that nothing good will come out of it. Montana on the other hand concerns me with with her duck box where Rational's name is on it. I can very well see an interaction between Montana and Rational if something isn't done and I hope I don't see it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I also see that you have been involved with Montanabw User talk:Karanacs#Rationalobserver regarding talk of an I-ban, and thus feel an uninvolved admin should make the call here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Karanacs: I am even more concerned that you would let personal attacks by Cassianto go on your talkpage:
"Cheers for the ping Montanabw, and I'm in total agreement with you about RO. They are a nasty piece of work and I can never forget the disgusting comments made about me in January when OrangesRYellow accused me of glorifying the act of rape. RO was instrumental in that arguement and sided with the the other two filthy specimens who made the comments. This resulted in a block for me, a month or two away from the project, and a lasting reluctance to return to FA writing. RO is a toxic personality. They should have been banned months ago, and this block has been a long time coming. The Iritaba article is, in my opinion, a load of old rubbish and certainly not worth the paper it's written on. The last time I looked in, it was littered with mistakes and needed a complete rewrite; something that has since taken place, and all the better for it. I'm not to up to speed with the dispute with Victoria but to me, it sounds like she has discovered what sort of person RO truly is. By the way, I'm not an admin but I wish I was because I'd have blocked them indef months ago. ;)"

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Related comments

I don't think the second link says what you interpreted it to say. Karanacs (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe not, but how about the first one? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Karanacs. I've seen RO get more criticism over her work in a few weeks than most editors get in their entire wiki lives. I can see why she'd snap at times, it's not as if she's just going about trolling pages and wreaking havoc, there's two sides to this. I think they should all distance themselves from each other, but if Victoria and Montana refuse to stay away then there's not much I can do about it. But as you said Sagacious before your post was removed, even if it was an interaction ban between them, I can see RO having a disagreement with somebody else. I'd like to believe RO has some GA quality articles to give in coming weeks. I say give it one more go, and if they're at each other's throats again within a few weeks then I'll have been proved right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
All I want is one more chance, and I think I deserve it. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure starting a section entitled "Editors advising Montanabw and Victoriaearle to back off me" is a great idea when you have an active unblock request going on. It can cause people to start worrying about what you're going to concentrate on immediately after unblocking. Also, it's important to note that you've removed comments from MontanaBW, VictoriaEarle, and Sagaciousphil; I'm not saying you're not allowed to, and I can kind of understand why you'd want to, but I do think it's important for the reviewing admin to be aware they exist, and to look in the page history to read them. Important enough that, if this comment is removed, I'm going to go ahead and decline this request. Otherwise, I'll leave it for someone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Point taken, and if I'm unblocked I'll not continue to mention them; I promise, but it's very important to this discussion, where people are suggesting that I have been a problem for them. To clarify the meaning of "forcing interactions", as far as I can tell I've never edited a single article that Montanabw had edited first. Not a one. ([24]) And I've only edited one article that Victoriaearle had previously edited, Charles Dickens. ([25]) This ought to at least demonstrate that I am not following them in article space. I admit that what I did was wrong, but I think what they are doing is also wrong. I.e., I don't see a mutual interaction ban as applying any undue pressure, as our editing does not overlap, and it should be quite easy for them to avoid me and vice versa, which is what Dr. Blofeld has suggested above.Rationalobserver (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments by Giano were also removed. So the complete list is Giano, MontanaBW, VictoriaEarle, and Sagaciousphil's comments and objections were removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There is such a thing as put downs by a group of people and a mob mentality that comes with it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed there is, and the GGTF comes immediately to mind. Will Rationalobserver commit to never again jumping on a bandwagon for personal gain? Eric Corbett 00:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Im not sure what the GGTF has to do with it, last I heard she quit and thought that was the end of that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you deliberately ignore "jumping on a bandwagon"? Eric Corbett 01:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see anything here, I hadn't been following but I do know that editors jump on bandwagons all the time here on Wikipedia for personal gain so its nothing I haven't heard before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Then perhaps you need to start thinking before reacting? FWIW I would support unblocking RO, in the certain knowledge that she'd be blocked again in a few weeks time for attacking someone else, and then the problem would be gone. Prove me wrong. Eric Corbett 01:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's no secret that I dislike RO, but even I think that the length of the initial block was a bit too long. Having said that, a block of some kind was a long time coming in my opinion. Learn from this and move on. CassiantoTalk 23:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I did learn, and I will move on if given the chance. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Given the history, and the selective editing of comments which are removed from the talk page; I'm sorry, but I can not endorse an unblock at this time. While I agree that a 2 week to 6 month situation is uncalled for, I also see that against advice of others, RO chose to not wait out the "month" which was advised. Do what you will admins., .. but the "3 weeks is almost a month" tells me much. I oppose an unblock at this time. — Ched :  ?  00:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Dr. Blofeld has a really good bead on the situation and is a reasonably neutral person here. Maybe there does need to be an interaction ban. No one is innocent here, including RO, but I still think she can be a tremendous asset. Maybe a two way ban should be explored. We don't have to say yes or no to an unblock today, but maybe we should talk about a process so everyone can edit in peace. I will be out of town for several days without access, so I leave it the community. I will say that RO is a flawed person with good intentions. We all are to one degree or another, are we not? She needs to learn to back off quicker, but some others also need to just back away and not antagonize her. Maybe they don't do it on purpose, but we ALL deserve a fair chance, so I'm asking her detractors to step back a bit and give her a chance. Please. Today or next week, lets do the right thing and try to find a workable solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rationalobserver, my philosophy is to keep Wiki matters on-wiki. Given the fact that I had already posted in this thread - and you had responded - it was unnecessary for you to send an email. Whether you intend it or not (and I'll AGF that you do not), the fact that you frequently remove comments from your talk page and have an established habit of emailing editors when you are having a dispute with someone (either as a defense of yourself or an attack on someone else) gives the impression that you are trying to cover up things. My advice to you is to be as transparent as possible. This will likely cool down some of the accusations against you. Karanacs (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we please give her a two week trial starting from today? See what she can produce in two weeks without incident. I think she needs to be unblocked sooner rather than later as I believe certain things on here motivate her to produce content. Ched you originally even acknowledged anything over 2 weeks was excessive. Cassianto and Eric can't stand her either and think 6 months is ridiculous. I don't see the point in waiting until the month is out for the sake of it. She's waited three weeks at least now hasn't she? Unblock her and the very valid point I and some others made about an interaction ban, particularly from conversing with Victoria, can be discussed later. As I said previously in the long term I really think the situation needs to change because I can see conflict happening again. But I think RO deserves a chance to continue and produce content. At least give it a two week trial anyway. After that, we can reassess the situation and discuss possible interaction bans if necessary and how to make the best of the situation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I had totally forgotten about this user and their behavior. It made me jog down memory lane, on my talk page, where I mentioned NOTHERE being applicable. Anywayz, I don't think that six months is "ridiculous", not at all; at the same time, we have an unblock request here and many seem to think that it's been long enough. We have no solid evidence of them being a sock of Matisse, as far as I know, and in the absence of a comment by Coffee (which I was looking for) we might as well unblock, with some ROPE of course. If Coffee or anyone else doesn't have anything to add and nothing's happened, ping me in a day or two (not you, Rationalobserver, since I don't think you think I'm worth my salt as an admin) and I'll see about an unblock. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I am well aware that a single anecdote is of relatively limited value in a case like this, but I had a conversation with Rationalobserver at the Reliable sources noticeboard a couple of months ago, which can be seen here. Though we had a give-and-take, RO accepted my concerns about the reliability of Frank Waters as a source with grace, and as far as I know, stopped using a work by that author as a source. I am well aware that there have been problems but this editor has clearly created some useful content. Accordingly, I recommend giving the editor another chance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

−

−

−

− * Read this Signpost in full

− * Single-page

− * Unsubscribe

− * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

−

−

eMail and outing

regarding your email of last night: As I've mentioned before to you (in email), I'm not particularly fond of getting "Look what User:xyz did" emails. However, I do understand your concerns. In looking very briefly at the two links you've sent regarding User:Montanabw [26] and [27]; I see that they (Montanabw) do mention a general location in a very large country. I don't know as that really qualifies as "outing" per WP:OUT, but you could email the arbitration committee if you feel there's an issue. You could also post a {{adminhelp}} template. I'm also a bit confused as User:Lynn Wysong claims that they were the one being outed by the posts. I only have a brief amount of time left before I leave on vacation, but I'll look a bit more. — Ched :  ?  16:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If you reread the diffs, you'll see that Montana has attempted to out both mine and SheriWysong's geographic locations: "RO edited logged out and geolocated to Las VegasCalifornia; [SheriWysong] twice edited logged out and geolocated to twothree different places Las Vegas and two in Utah; well within the range of dynamic IPs of ISPs in the American west". I've never revealed my location to anyone on-Wiki, and Montanabw is telling the whole world that there are diffs to be found that reveal my location. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And FTR, I emailed this to avoid drawing more attention to it, which is now impossible due to this thread. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Are you really saying that it's okay for Montana to attempt to reveal what city I live in and that there are diffs floating around that would pinpoint my location even more precisely? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If a person is logging out and editing with an IP it's not outing. Now what you can do to mitigate teh damage is when it happens accidently to ask for oversight. It's a method I've used for various socks. For instance Brian Evans article has a sock that edits from Havershill, Boston, Hawaii and Las Vegas. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I never intentionally edited while logged out though; it happened by accident of the website, and I immediately asked an admin to hide the edit, which they did. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Common courtesy when it's accidental and good faith is to not blast it around the wiki-site. Once it is revdel it probably shouldn't be mentioned at all without due cause and by due cause if he has reason to believe you were socking and ignoring a block or evading scrutiny it should be in the proper forum. If not and that person is just blasting it maliciously then yeah it's a issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
A more recent example of Ip geolocation that has been used was by User:Newyorkbrad in regards to a banned user and how he knew it was him. I didn't know of that info myself but it is common process when identifying socks and such. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Clerks aren't supposed to connect IPs with accounts, not even at SPI. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference, Checkusers won't be used. If I can prove that person a lives in one city with their postings and then a new IP that just happens to be from that location and advocates the same edit or attacks then it becomes part of the behavioural investigation and geolocation can be used. But say if I ask for a checkuser just based on geolocation and a named acct then they will decline the checkuser request. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a look here [[28]]I used all of those things to link a sock. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a million ways to Wikilawyer this, but the bottom line is that I never revealed my geographic location to anyone on-Wiki, and my privacy was invaded by Montana when she told the entire internet that she thinks she knows what city I live in. Beyond that there is nothing to discuss. This attempt to out me is harassment. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If they have no proof about that and you never edited logged out or self id'd it would be harrassment and outing, there really is no reason to mention anyone's location unless you can prove things mentioned on wiki. If that's the case then I'd suggest opening an ANI thread. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If you are still blocked post it here and someone will post it for you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently blocked, so I can't open any threads, but per your comment: If they have no proof about that and you never edited logged out or self id'd it would be harrassment and outing, that's EXACTLY what has happened here. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Write it all up and then ping me. I'll open the ANI on your behalf just be careful though with how and what you write, seem slike a lot of people want to boomerang you pretty hard. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Give me a few minutes, and I'll write it up and ping you. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, how does this look? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Attempted outing and harassment

User:Montanabw has attempted to out my physical location on-Wiki. First she stated: "RO edited logged out and geolocated to Las Vegas", but later amended the statement to read: "RO edited logged out and geolocated to Las VegasCalifornia". I have never revealed my geographic location on-Wiki nor have I ever intentionally edited while logged-out. There was one time that the website interface failed, and it recorded my IP, but I immediately asked an admin to hide the diff, which they did. This is an attempted outing and harassment.

I posted it. I really have no background or frame of reference to say one way or another. I've been through enough drama to know I really don't want to dig into anything complex i just figured I'd help get the ball rolling for you as not much responding was happening. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Hell in a Bucket. This has been quite disheartening, and I am appreciative of your assistance in this matter. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, now Montana has posted the supposed diff of me editing out on An/I: ([29]). So the attempted outing continues. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Chillum, will you please confirm that when the website accidentally recorded my IP I asked you to hide it? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I do remember removing an IP from the history of one of your pages at your request. Chillum 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This is an attempted outing then right? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket, at Montana's talk you said "Do you have on wiki info to the Geolocation you are inferring to? If you don't please drop that aspect, if you do please make sure it is very very clear where it was because without that information it's a reasonable assumption that you may have outed RO." Well, Montana is still telling people that there is a "publicly viewable" diff that pinpoints my geographic location ([30]). Rationalobserver (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rationalobserver/Archive_3&oldid=1143255525"