Ratagonia

Nice edits! :) --mav 16:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you have a look at pekmez and clean it up? Nice edits for Zile.Ugur Olgun 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thought you'd like to know, that the WikiProject Climbing collaboration for the first half of December is Yvon Chouinard, which you've edited before. Please help improve the article to at least Good Article status. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rat, thanks for the welcome to wiki on my talk page. I'm looking forward to contributing to the climbing related articles wherever I can!

Jnoring 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova). Thank you. --Justanother 17:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Rat. Haven't figured out how to do this - where can I learn? Tell me here.

Please note that my external link was to the section of the Warren Report that deals with the history of presidential assassinations, with emphasis on Lincoln. Your ref. only goes to a discussion of the Warren Report with an internal link which doesn't do that. For some reason section 7 doesn't come up. (Later), well, I fixed it with a direct link to Appendix 7. ( JohnClarknew 05:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you fixed it to work correctly, and I thank you for the instruction on my page JohnClarknew 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ratagonia. Just got back on after having dealt with some especially horrendous personal business for a week. Thanks for bringing the point home on those three references. Yes, original research was NOT THE POINT!! Ftord1960 22:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for fixing my error at Sherpa people. No idea how I managed to re-introduce that. Kuru ^talk 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edit to Ultralight backpacking, but I have reverted the edit you made and reverted the (fact) back to (jardine). Perhaps page numbers, as you suggest, is a good idea, but not essential, and my understanding is placing page numbers for each reference will completely overwhelm the References section with a single book as the reference - unless there is a better way to do I do not know about. Perhaps this is something that should be discussed on the talk page of the article. --Naturespace (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rat:

Dunno if you're active, but it seems remotely possible you'd be interested in this. Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests.

I get around a lot in the outdoors and rarely treat water, but WD had some good stuff in int.

After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Zion National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wanted to talk to you about your edits on Operation Just Cause. As you can see, there was a discussion months ago in which we agreed to maintain a non-biased Point of View towards the results of the movilization. As you can see, we allowed US troops to remain on the nation, meaning that it was not an invasion. This is also on the article's Talk page in case you want to verify it. 201.218.86.201 (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, my name is Jarhed and I am an amateur rock climber and mountaineer. I recently reviewed some of the articles on these subjects, and I believe that they could use the attention of interested editors such as yourself. I have proposed a new project on these topics and I am interested in your opinion. You can find the proposal here: Mountaineering and Climbing Project Proposal. Thank you for your time, and have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, nice work adding notable ascents and AAJ references to lots of articles. Thanks! -- Spireguy (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you really consider 5.9 to be 6a? Steple (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I assume you mean you ordered Landmarks in the Landscape, not the sourcebook, which is more prosaic. You'll like Landmarks, although Kaiser could have a less academic writing style. His book on Adirondack-style architecture is a bit of a disappointment. Acroterion _(talk) 00:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you, Acroterion. Yes, the Landmarks book which looks wonderful. My apologies if any vitriol was perceived in those exchanges. Ratagonia (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

None taken. There's a great deal of context to be gained by combining the stubs, but it's easier to start out with the stubs and combine if necessary, at least for me. Many of the virtues in the Park Service design of the 20s and 30s are found in the small-scale work, which was, taken as a whole, profoundly influential. The Landmarks book got me interested in the style. The Zion chapter's only about ten pages long, though. You might like to look at some of the HABS documentation for the Zion – Mount Carmel Highway, specifically this [1] describing the tunnel construction; it's quite interesting once you've got it big enough to read on the screen. Acroterion _(talk) 01:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I found that a few months ago. There is a good, small book out on the Tunnel which is fun, and alludes to an earlier, non-condensed book on the tunnel that I have not found yet. Tom. Ratagonia (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

By the way, since you seem to be rather accomplished photography-wise and you're on the spot, any and all pictures you care to contribute would be welcome. The picture of the Lodge shows a correctly-exposed turkey, but the lodge is a big brown blob in the background. It doesn't have to be commercial-grade art or something you'd rather sell: nice clear encyclopedic descriptions are the thing, with the general composition style of HABS documentation. Acroterion _(talk) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that, kinda lame. There should be better photos available in the NPS Archive, or I can go shoot a pic next time I am down that way (might), which means I should FINALLY figure out how to release photos to the Wiki! Ratagonia (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ratagonia

Are you aware of this accusation against you: [Proposed_topic_ban_on_Landmark_Education_SPAs] even though you don't seem to have edited on related topics in the last year or so. This looks like an attempt to condemn you without giving you an opportunity to defend yourself. DaveApter (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Remarkable. Is there a place to respond to this? The noticeboard discouraged discussion on that page. Ratagonia (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please stop. The archiving was already extended, from one month to 3 months, and from a minimum of one thread remaining on the page, to five. Cirt (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please engage in discussion in the subsection I started at the bottom of the talk page, instead of reverting archival of three-month-old threads. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Whale Whores has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nice set of improvements. Good work! Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/HeadleyDown

http://sites.google.com/site/sockmasterouting/ [[2]]

A detailed run-down of HeadleyDown and his meat/sockpuppets is here: https://sites.google.com/site/exposingsocks/ [[3]]

http://www.nlpconnections.com/forum/15975-master-sock-puppeteer-outed.html [[4]]

http://www.nlpconnections.com/forum/15975-master-sock-puppeteer-outed-2.html [[5]]

Note the comment: by James Donnelly

I am a skeptic myself like some other NLPers. However, the NLP article is far from balanced. It looks like a blatant attack on NLP. The website you linked is quite clear on one thing: Pro NLPers have never been banned. That should tell you something: Wikipedians other than youself realize your editing is highly biased. Of course they allow others in to balance the picture.Good luck with promoting your side and routing your foes. I think it will backfire badly though. You and your pseudoskeptic friends will just end up getting banned again. CheersJamesD

Here's what happened the last time: [[6]]

And last but not least, the Wikipedia ban on HeadleyDown+sock/meatpuppets and any reincarnation of him, based upon BEHAVIOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.106.37 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ratagonia, thanks for your comments. A couple of thoughts for you from the perspective of a closing admin. First, I have learned over my tenure working on WP that everything works the smoothest when its dealt with in the right place. A requested move discussion is just about one thing, should the current article title move to another article title at this point in time--nothing more, nothing less. Whatever the discussion decision is, it is in a sense temporary because nothing prevents the article title from changing in the future given the right consensus to do so. WP:WIP tells us that that although Xixabangma may not be the perfect title, at this moment in time, its doing no harm to the project and readers will hopefully find the mountain article and its content useful. Contrary to want you might think, my close did not, and should not be construed to have sanctioned or put a stamp of approval on another editors action. To many of our discussions fall into the trap of becoming behaviorial discussions as this one did to some extent. When that happens, everyone, including those who have to review the discussion get distracted from the objectives of the discussion. An RM discussion is not, and should not be a behaviorial dispute resolution discussion, there are other forums for that. When discussions are marred with emotion, rationalization, and yes, bad behavior--I think that was reflected in the way the searches were made and presented by the various parties in this case--I become cautious. There are only two outcomes to an RM discussion--Consensus to move to a new title at this time or no consensus to move to a new title at this time. Neither outcome is permanent. I have left some other suggestions on this for moving forward, and would suggest that if editors feel strongly about the behavior of another editor, then those issues should be raised in the right forums so they can be dealt with rationally. A global collaborative community such as WP is hard work, so lets get back to it. --Mike Cline (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have been involved in the recent naming discussion at Talk:Xixabangma. There is a new poll to determine support for the move from Shishapangma to Xixabangma. If you are interested, please provide your opinion here.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply