Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, Squeamish Ossifrage! Rationalobserver (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

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)[reply]

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

• book
• Report upon the Colorado River of the West : explored in 1857 and 1858 by Joseph C. Ives
• Washington : Government Printing Office, 1861
• illustration Irataba is at left. This is plate IV on page 54. The artist is Balduin Möllhausen

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Simon Burchell, what do you make of the concern with NYPL? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Commons:Copyright rules by territory
• Commons:Village pump - post image questions here and copyright-knowledgeable Commons users are usually very helpful.
• Commons:Village_pump/Copyright - ditto

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)[reply]

Simon Burchell and We hope, how do I cull from this treasure trove ([1])? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

That's awesome! Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would a proper citation to this brochure look like? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This ought to help out:

• copy 1
• copy 2
• The Chaco canyon and its monuments, by Edgar L. Hewett. Publication of the University of New Mexico and the School of American research. [Albuquerque] University of New Mexico press [c1936]

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)[reply]

That's great; thanks for helping me out! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

• The Chaco branch excavations at White Mound and in the Red Mesa Valley
• Harold Sterling Gladwin Globe, Ariz., Priv. print. for Gila pueblo, 1945.

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

She might have renewed it in her married name – Ellis. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How does this look (File:Excavation map of Chetro Ketl by Florence M. Hawley (1934).png)? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is 100% right! :-) We hope (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just sort of stumbled on that, but it's pretty handy! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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."

• Permission to publish

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)[reply]

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.

• story 1
• story 2

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would say certainly worth mentioning that he claimed that. Perhaps Maunus could offer an opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with Simon, include it but without passing it as true.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The picture is cool though, but are we certain that it's Irataba? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I know about the photo is from the Smithsonian. We hope (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks legit to me. Can we add it to commons? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

• Review of the book

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.

• Google Book link We hope (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing so much great research for Dr. B and I. We appreciate it! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

150th anniversary of CRIT Can you use this too? :-) We hope (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let me try to get over there a little later on today/tonight. We hope (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the wonderful addition I made using the Parker Pioneer source ([2])! Thanks for that! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm definitely interested! That's a great find! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It goes really well in the next to last section! Rationalobserver (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK-request is in :) We hope (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I agree. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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 ([3],[4],[5],[6]), 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)[reply]

---

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.

Victoriaearle, they just blocked me for harassing you. Will you please comment here? I thought we were just talking, and I see that you restored the supposed harassment and responded in a friendly manner. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, did Victoria say I was harassing her, because I thought we were just talking? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Maunus, you said you thought I was trying to reconcile with Victoria, and I only went over there because you said we should put our differences aside. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that. I did not encourage you to approach her on her talkpage, though. Don't worry, I will do my best to see Irataba through the review. Probably some time off wikipedia is a good thing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you encouraged me to go there, but I thought you were right that we should put this aside. Did you think I was harassing her? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've already said what I was thinking at the time. Presently I am not sure what to think, clearly there was part of a back story that I was not aware of. I will try not to spend more time in vain on this issue and instead focus on the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The backstory is I had never even spoken to her before she accused me of being a sock in mid-February. I have never forced any interactions with her, and the only times I went to her talk page was to work things out. Wait to see if she says I was harassing her before passing judgment, because she hasn't commented on this yet. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did Victoria say I was harassing her? As far as I can tell, only Sarah and Eric Corbett said that. She replied to my comments in a friendly manner and restored my comments after I removed them. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle, do you think I was harassing you and deserved this block? Please respond. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RO please stop pinging me. I'd not logged into WP since Sunday night until I took a quick break from work today and noted my name mentioned on your page. My page is now a huge mess and I've not had time read the many messages, nor have had time to look at the FAC. I'm busy with real life at the moment and can't get to all this immediately. When I have anything substantive to say, if I feel I do, I'll post it. Victoria (tk) 00:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding for an unblocking admin: it will take too long to gather diffs about this, but I think it's something that will have to be done. A cursory look shows that only four of the threads on my page in the past six weeks are about something other than Rationalobserver. Furthermore, my edit count for March is the lowest since Oct. 2013, and of those 160 and so edits an awful lot were to do with RO. So in the least, it's fair to say that it's been disruptive. I did file an SPI with the belief that RO was a sock of ItsLassieTime, I did apologize, disengage and cease editing. I'm less convinced now than I was then that RO is ILT, but I think there's more to this story than has been revealed. If it were up to me, I'd say we need to figure which account the user had before the RO acct., and even before the one revealed to the arbs, and whether or not we're dealing with a clean start, or a sock master. Certainly three SPIs since the acct was created is suggestive that something's not quite right. I'm posting these thoughts here because I got pinged multiple times. Do I think I've been harassed? Yes, I do. Diffs available upon request. Victoria (tk) 01:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]