User talk:Rockpocket

Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an administrator since 10 November 2006.

To leave a message or request admin action, you may click here.

I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here.

Archives

2006 1) 3 January 2006 – 17 March 2006 2) 18 March 2006 – 20 May 2006 3) 21 May 2006 – 8 June 2006 4) 10 June 2006 – 29 July 2006 5) 1 August 2006 – 31 October 2006 6) 1 November 2006 – 30 November 2006 7) 1 December 2006 – 31 December 2006 2007 8) 1 January 2007 – 28 January 2007 9) 29 January 2007 – 25 February 2007 10) 1 March 2007 – 31 March 2007 11) 1 April 2007 – 28 April 2007 12) 1 May 2007 – 22 May 2007 13) 23 May 2007 – 4 June 2007 14) 5 June 2007 – 5 July 2007 15) 7 July 2007 – 5 August 2007 16) 9 August 2007 – 10 September 2007 17) 11 September 2007 – 15 October 2007 18) 17 October 2007 – 30 November 2007

User:Vintagekits

Please would you stop VK adding fact tags to James Arbuthnot. - Kittybrewster ☎ 20:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think it shouldnt be sourced or referenced? Maybe you should source it properly and I wouldnt have to - are you trying to turn this into a war? I have been nothing but polite! IN fact should you be editing the article as he is your brother and you have been blocked for editing these articles before because of WP:COI. regards--Vintagekits 20:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of adding {{fact}} tags, its obvious that any involvement from me will result in only more drama. Vk's editing has been fine since I stepped away, I would rather keep it that way.

Here is my opinion: If the information can be sourced, Kb, it would be much better to do so than dispute the motivation of the tag. Vk, my advice to you is to add appropriate tags, by all means, but let someone else decide whether or not a lack of sourcing should result in the content being deleted. If that advice isn't acceptable to either to you, then I suggest you ask for assistance at ANI, or the Troubles ArbCom enforcement page. Rockpocket 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Though this, while amusing, really isn't on. We can't call someone's voice "monotonous" as if it is a fact, when it is simply an opinion of someone else. How about reverting that yourself, Vk, and saving us the drama of further conflict? Rockpocket 20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Before Kb came running over here to whinge to you (wonder why he chose you!?! hhhmmm!) I had left a message saying "source doesnt say he was captain - please add another source. This articles referencing is very poor. Can you please fix them all or else more fact tags will have to be added, regards" I was about to step away from the article and let him take care of it but he seems to want to turn this into something bigger.

I am also interested to hear views on Kb's COI here - he has been warned and blocked for this before and as this is his brothers article shirley he's is breaching this again.--Vintagekits 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that whenever this family come to notice it means trouble? As I point out in this edit summary, BHG is on holiday, Alison has her hands full trying to stop this kind of stupidity spilling onto Veropedia, and Giano is (ahem) otherwise occupied - and I suspect has had enough of getting involved in other people's arguments, while myself and (I suspect) Guy have had more than enough of cleaning up Arbuthnot family messes. If either of you end up getting blocked for this, you're probably on your own this time. (BTW VK, WP:COI doesn't ban him from writing on his family - it just discourages it and means he has to make sure he's neutral.) — iridescent 21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish for you to be distrubed by mine of anyone elses actions. However, I cant see what the hell I am supposed to have down here! Does Kb think that articles about his family dont have to be references? The guy is just whinging because he cant be arsed to reference it - if he doesnt want to reference it then he shouldnt write it in the first place imo.--Vintagekits 21:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Vk, you have made it perfectly clear that you consider it inappropriate for me to take action in issues related to that ArbCom case, so you can't have it both ways. If you have concerns, take them to someone that you are willing to work with. There are COI issues with editing articles about one's brother and one should be very careful in editing that page, but as Iridescent says, that does not prohibit one from editing the article. Non-controversial facts such which degree someone got is exactly the sort of thing one would expect a brother to know. Why you consider that to be dubious enough to query it, I do not know. However, if you wish to query something that is your prerogative, i'm just asking if is it really worth opening old wounds over something so trivial?

The only concern I have over your edits is your recent added statement at the end, Vk. It is a POV violation as it stands and I will remove it if you don't address that by rewording. Rockpocket 21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Life's just grand isn't it. LOL Giano 21:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ain't that right. For the record, Giano, while I disagree with your methods, I think justice has been done. You have an uncanny ability, IMHO, to do exactly the right thing in exactly the wrong way. Its a remarkable skill you have. Rockpocket 21:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough Rocky you are not the first person to say that to me but when I logged on just now thinking "Oh God what is the yellow flash to say this time!" and saw this [1] it was just a plesure to see it and laugh out loud, and it is referenced. I'lleave you to deal with it. Giano 21:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It made me laugh too. I'm kind of hoping Vk will refactor it himself. Rockpocket 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I said I wouldnt edit the page for a week but will sort the sentance. I dont like editing here as much as you dont want me here but I only came because it was so patethic of Kb to come over bitching because he doesnt think he should have to reference his articles - if they arnt referenced its just OR.--Vintagekits 21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. However, lack of references ≠ OR. Rockpocket 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that is a piss take. I am not going to step in as I said I would stay off for a week, which I will honour - but there is a chapter from the Book of Ezekiel thing springs to mind which would be apt for my return. Kindly control you dogs!--Vintagekits 22:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. VK and KB, in my view the both of you should know better. This belongs on the article's talk anyway... instead of coming to some admin first and asking for help, why not try amicably working it out there? I've started a thread for you: Talk:James_Arbuthnot#Edit_warring_over_how_someone.27s_voice_sounds.3F and really. I mean really. The whole thing seems rather petty to me but I may be confused. ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Kb, there is a clear conflict of interest if you intend to patrol your brothers article and delete anything that you consider to be unsuitable. Vk, your history of animosity towards Kb and his family makes the selective addition of such personal criticism, without any attempt at establishing context, questionable.

As both of you should have learned by now, this is the sort of low level warfare leads to incivility that leads to attacks that leads to blocks. The process has started already (Kindly control your dogs is not acceptable language, Vk. Moreover, considering you were the one that screamed foul when I attempted to "control" your inappropriate edits, you are the last person that should be asking me to deal with anyone else.) I strongly suggest you discuss it on the talk page like responsible adults and come to some sort of agreement on an appropriate wording for such content, or else I will protect the article and refer both of you to another admin for sanctions, per the ArbCom. Rockpocket 23:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I didnt want to come here - there are clear COI, OWN and OR issues at hand here that seem to be being overlooked. I would love ot know what I have actually done wrong here! Is Kb's problem that he doesnt want to reference his material or he doesnt want other peoples referenced material - someone needs to take that man in hand and explain for once and for all that we ALL have to abide by wiki policies NOT just me. I've done jack all wrong, if Kb doesnt want to discuss it on the talk page and prefers to run here cos he knows he can stir and drum up support then there is little I can do about that. --Vintagekits 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into the who did what to whom bit, that way lies danger... I reviewed the edit history and I saw that both you guys were doing things that, while technically might be "per policy" (adding fact tags, overdoing the cites and quotes so that there was a lot of material, both seemingly to make a point, etc...), just seemed like low level warfare (within the bounds of policy, yes, but not being "nice") rather than collegial editing. VK especially, what I had heard lately was that you were doing a lot of high quality work, so much so that you got a barnstar over it IIRC. I think stepping away from this article for a week is an excellent idea. Maybe KB ought to do the same and leave it to some third party to try to unhash what that section should say. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I regarded Vk's presence on that page as provocative. Nevertheless I supplied the references he requested - which were easily found. He then added text which is clearly POV (per Rockpocket) unencyclopedic (by any standard) and misattributed to Soames. He challenges me to reference "my" article (which it isn't) and continues to plead innocence (which rings a bell). The correct solution is that Vk avoids the article and somebody keeps an eye on it. If Lar or Rockpocket or Iridiscenti think more inline refs would be helpful, then that would be fine. Meanwhile maybe a one month protection would be a good idea. And I will avoid boxers' articles. - Kittybrewster ☎ 00:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kb asked for help and I told him I'm not in a position to offer anything except advice for both. Vk has made it clear he not believe I should be involved in these disputes in an administrative capacity, so what does he expect me to do about the potential for COI? There is WP:COIN where Vk can report his concern to an "uninvolved" administrator. Rockpocket 00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually picked on you because I thought you were online and because you are aware of the history. I don't think Vk has the right to keep you out of it and I am grateful to you and Iridiscenti for blocking the article for 24 hours. Thank you. I think it should be a month. I have asked Walton One to take over and prove the additional latest comments are neither a correct quotation, NPOV nor encyclopedic. Presumably on JA's talk page. How he does that is beyond me. i also think vk should be banned from that article. Is there a real need to reference it further? - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm always happy to help where I can, Kb, and always feel free to ask for help if you require it. If it is likely that my involvement will inflame, I may not take action direct myself, but I am always happy to offer advice or refer the issue to someone else. Vk is not keeping me out of it; I just made the decision that its in the best interests of everyone if I took a different position and, coincidentally, an opportunity came up that allowed me to do that effectively. Don't worry, I'm still very much monitoring things. I don't think there is a need to protect the article for longer at the present time, but if the edit-warring continues, that could be the outcome. There is a workable compromise to be made here, and those who are interested have enough experienced between them to work it out, assuming they don't let their personal differences get in the way. Rockpocket 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Kitybrewster's continued editing of his politician brother's page it may be a good idea to keep an eye on this section here [2] to see if any advice or precedents emerge on the subject. Giano 10:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea, but its also a reminder to how editing an article can feel like an academic exercise to you and I, but can have real and detrimental effects on the lives of the subjects. Its worth remembering that when considering whether to quote some trivial and personal criticism in BLP articles. Rockpocket 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not "under probation". - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Magnet for the Miserable

I think I have to change my user name. Almost whatever I write, I seem to attract the terminally cranky. Perhaps it is my writing style that is irrtating. Do you have any helpful ideas? Oh, and thank you for your support for the "peanut gallery" at Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Miscellaneous#What can hospitals force you to stay for?. I did notice. :-) Bielle 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't honestly think its anything to do you with personally, Bielle. In this case, if the person had read you comment a bit more carefully before lecturing you, I think they would have noticed your wording was crafted in way to not presuppose anything. Subtlety of language is rarely appreciated at the reference desk, especially among those who finds things "very irritating" and feels compelled to let us all know that. Sometimes you go through periods, on Wikipedia, when everything you do appears to be an issue for someone. Don't let it change you, it will pass. Rockpocket 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I do try to write the answers carefully, just so that these kinds of misunderstandings won't happen. However, careful writing does presuppose careful reading. I shouldn't complain, though, especially to you. I did notice that one of your volcanos appears to be bubbling again. Thanks for the kind words. Bielle 03:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted

And no worries. That case brought out anger and passion in many of us. While I still have a serious issue with how some powerful people comported themselves in this case, my anger had gotten the best of me, and it took a new friend e-mailing me about it, and GRBerry (who I asked to look at my notes at Bauder's page) gently admonishing me, to get me to see it. Thanks for the note at my talkpage. Regards, Mr Which^??? 14:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My first barnstar!

Thank you so much for the barnstar you left on my page - even though it gotted eaten by a bear, it's the thought that counts ;)... and on my birthday, too! (well, actually about 7 minutes after it ended, but hey, who's counting? :D). I'm actually a little confused as to what it's for, as the link you left points to the humanities reference desk, but the anchor doesn't seem to work. I'm guessing maybe the Vicky poem, but I'm not sure. Anyways, thank you! --Monorail Cat 08:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I'm being slow. Somehow I expected the link to jump to a specific part of the page (an anchor), but instead it shows a revision I made to it, and it was indeed the Vicky poem. Thanks for your vote of confidence - I'm now ready to leave my high power millionaire job, and make it as a full time poet ;P --Monorail Cat 08:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You freaked my wife out, btw. She calls me her bear, and, at the risk of sounding like an AOL user (or MySpace user, or whatever they call 'em these days) she was 'all like' "ZOMG! They're stalking you! they know you're a bear! why'd you eated your barnstar?!" :D --Monorail Cat 08:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids. Y'know, it suddenly occurs to me just how incredibly surreal this conversation would look to anyone who viewing either my talkpage or yours, but not both together.. Oh well, let 'em wonder. I can just tell them the voices make me say these things... On a slightly more serious note, I'm happy to chat back and forth as long as you like, but if I'm spamming up your talk page too much, let me know and I can stop =) --Monorail Cat 09:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to spam with impunity for the next 9 hours, as I'm off to bed! However, before I go I feel I must point out that you seem to enjoy wearing that Spiderman costume just a little too much. Don't get me wrong, if it floats your boat than its cool with me. However, its my duty to inform you that you should not spread your Superhero fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich, lest we go rouge on your ass. And that ain't pretty. Goodnight ;) Rockpocket 09:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief! I bring up a surreal Wikipedia page, and you raise me an even surreal..er? one! I can see it's going to be a long, long time before I've 'seen it all' here. Well, g'night, anyways, and I hope your dreams aren't tainted by images of men climbing public structures in tight leotards with insect emblems (unless that's your thing, of course, in which case.. enjoy!) :D --Monorail Cat 09:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the last line can be tricky! Tyrenius (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hitting the Beeb is big-time, indeed though Nature was right up there to start with. I wonder if what you have discovered (with the aid of a colleague or two) is the same reaction that causes people dealing with horses never to take into the stall of one stallion a rag that has touched another stallion, and contains its his sweat. Bielle (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I really have to bring my congratulations here also. Dear Rockpocket, you are my virtual friend and mentor; and that's as fulsome as Clio gets! ♥ Clio the Muse (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. It is exciting times indeed, we just heard that my boss has been interviewed for an appearance on Good Morning America tomorrow!

That is a very interesting question, Bielle. Although it isn't in this paper, we have since been looking more closely at the proteins, where they are found and in what other species the same system is likely to be at play. As it happens I have found one horse protein of the same type. It was originally described by immunologists as a potent allergen, and we know that it is found in horse saliva and skin dandruff (the mouse ones are found in saliva too). No-one has looked to see if it is in sweat (yet). I wasn't aware that there was such a behavioural response to sweat in stallions, that is really interesting. Are you familiar with it, if so have you ever noticed the characteristic Flehmen response in stallions when smelling the rag? That would be a real clue as to the mechanism is similar. Let me speak to my colleagues about this and I'll get back to you, as it could be something we could look at. Rockpocket 02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Being allergic to horses, I don't spend time near them if I can help it. The comment arose from a murder mystery, of all things. I can't recall if the book was by John Francome or Dick Francis. They both write murder mysteries set in the horse-racing community, and both are known for the realistic settings of their books. In the book of which I speak, all sweat rags, and the "lab coats" worn by staff around stallions, were left with each stallion, and never carried into the stall area of another stallion. By making this mistake, one character in the book was trampled to death by a stallion. (I suggest then that a trial of letting a stallion smell the rag of another stallion might get a more energetic response than you would like.) I can check the real world with a friend whose horse farm has 200 breeding thoroughbred mares, but not until tomorrow night. If she hasn't noticed the Flehmen response among the stallions she has and/or uses, then perhaps someone on her staff has. Now, what army (national or private) will be interested in applying this aggressive response to humans, and what domestic-violence help group will be interested in its reverse application? You will be busy for quite some time, I suspect. Bielle (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in any information your friend could provide, Bielle. There is no direct implication for human behaviour, I'm afraid. We only have one copy of the gene (mice have 20) and it is pseudogenized and thus non-functional. Moreover, we don't have a functional version of the organ mice use to detect it. However, it is the first step towards identifying a specific neural circuit in the brain that encodes a complex behaviour in mammals. Thats where we are going next and that is where is becomes relevant to humans in terms of behavioural disorders.

Its been a day of much drama indeed, here. My wife's lab was evacuated today after an animal right group warned they had left a bomb in the building, and then someone found what appeared to be a propane tank covered in bullets. The FBI were called and, 10 hours later, have just announced that it wasn't armed, which is a relief. Rockpocket 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Out here in the country, buried in snow, excitement is a hairy woodpecker that flew into my bedroom window and now lies dead on the snow of the deck. I can't even get to the body as there is too much ice under the snow. I prefer my drama to yours, though I wish the bird hadn't died. They often fly into our windows and then bounce away to recover in a nearby birch, spruce or willow. No bomb threats, please, but, if you must have them, may they always be false alarms. I will report back on what my horse-breeding friend has to say. Bielle (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So I'm reading the BBC website and I suddenly realise you were probably inspired by wikipedia to start this research. Or maybe you were drawn to wikipedia to prove your thesis? :) David D. (Talk) 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Territorialism, male aggression, pissing matches... you're right, it could be about Wikipedia! Rockpocket 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do the girls fit in here?! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Girls? There are no girls here, everyone knows they are just manipulative sock puppets accounts of males. Rockpocket 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Truth will out! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to that! (Rockpocket's filthy mind goes into overdrive) Rockpocket 00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what's the virtual equivalent of a pheromone? A green signature? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My experience tells me it is one of these: Rockpocket 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! We need to find volunteers willing to blindly sniff admin-shirts in order to substantiate that! (*Takes one step back*) By the way, in your olfactory studies, has anyone ever mentioned that there's a German expression I can't smell him (meaning "I can't stand him")? Perhaps our ancestors knew more than we like to assume. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I spoke to my horse-breeding friend. She said she would ask someone with serious practical knowledge. Owners, she says, provide money, facilities, equipment, money and more money; the staff are the ones that know horses. Aside from knowing that stallion corrals are always round (so that nothing, including them) can be cornered in them, and that stallions are generally kept as far apart as the real estate will allow, she relies on the expertise of others. I wil report when I hear back. Bielle (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Thank you for the warm welcome on my page! Maybe you can tell me how to become involved with a Wikiprojects group? It seems a great way to dive in and start contributing.SkyllaLaFey (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Brown Dog Award
		For helping to get a fascinating little corner of English history fixed up and on the front page in record time. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Graduation

Hey Rockpocket, I haven’t needed to ask you for help in ages, so I guess I’m ready to graduate from my Wiki-adoption. Thanks so much for your help! I’ll try to do the same for another new Wikipedian someday when I have the necessary experience. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi S.dedalus, while I have probably been somewhat negligent recently in following your edits, what I have seen has been top notch (mainly at the Ref Desks). Briefly looking over your edit history, its clear you most certainly are familiar enough with Wikipedia that you could guide newbies. Its been my pleasure to work with you and feel free to drop by in the future if there is anything I can assist you with. I'll change the userbox to a graduation one presently! Rockpocket 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rockpocket! You’ve given me a terrific head-start here. See you ‘round. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Holiday template

Hi, Rockie! Once again I turn to you for help, though this time on a very minor matter. I'll be jetting of to Africa just before Christmas, as you know. I would like to put an 'I'm off on holiday template' on my user page prior to this, just in case anybody is wondering where I am. I saw a nice one some time ago on another user's page, with a cute little aeroplane! So far I've not been able to locate this. Could you please point me in the right direction? Thanks ever so. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this:

what you’re looking for? There are many at WP:WIKIBREAK. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

TimeShift9's talk page.

He doesn't like the contribution of anyone who disagrees with him.

He also like to get people banned for things he did wrong.

But, hey, let's just let people tell him what he did wrong so he can ignore/delete it and never have to improve.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that is so, but nothing will be achieved by revert warring with him on his own talk page, other than you getting blocked for WP:3RR. Just let it go. Rockpocket 06:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he'll learn to wake up for himself. He's already got me 3RR blocked because he refused to stop using the Australian Election 2007 talk page as a forum on Preferential Voting.

Weeks later and he's still behaving arrogantly, and I think he needs to wake up.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Its difficult to see how he alone got you 3RR blocked - I'm assuming it wasn't him that hit your revert button 4 times? Nevertheless, looking at your exchange, and from my own experience with Timeshift, its clear his understanding of civility is not exactly crystal clear. But, y'know people begin to notice these things and over time those editors who are chronically incivil begin to attract attention. In the meantime, put that one down to experience and move on. Getting yourself blocked again is not going to help. Rockpocket 06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think he deletes negative stuff from his page? Could it be because he knows that it slows down the chances of people noticing and attracting attention.

OK, yeah, I did 3RR, but only in attempt to kill a quickly growing non-wiki discussion. I did kill it, but I did break a rule. I was punished for it. Although it was generally agreed that Timeshift did wrong nothing was done about that. And so he gets away with it. Again.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

At that time the discussion was restored and actually did continue to a natural conclusion, for the record - only one other person agreed with the user that the discussion was "wrong". Orderinchaos 07:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet afterwards many people did. Which is why it was officially removed.

And I disagree with your claim that it that it ended naturally. After all, after you restored it, only one person added to it. You. It seems to me that maybe the removal of the thread may have caused most sensible people to realise they were in the wrong.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why he does it, but its not unusual and neither is it against policy (currently). A lot of people do, though it tends to be people that see Wikipedia as a battleground that does so. I, personally, think because its the one area that an editor has an element of individual control over on Wikipedia. So when there is a dispute, they feel an element of "victory" since their "opponent" is not permitted to revert them. There is also the aspect of removing it from view, so a pattern of behaviour less obvious. That doesn't work too well, though. As I said, people notice and they remember.

Look, two people can behave equally badly on wikipedia and one can get blocked and the other doesn't simply because the latter knows how the system works. That might work in the short term, but if you game the system long enough you get caught out. Its not worth worry about it, what is important is your behaviour. Stick to the rules, be polite and you will be fine. Let other people be rude if they want to, it will catch up with them in the end. Rockpocket 07:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

I finally discovered my inbox on my wiki profile account, and just wanted to send a thank you for the welcome letter you sent me.

-- Saukkomies —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your contrubution in talk:Biopsychiatry controversy when I was on a wiki-break. I already posted some comments in that page. Cesar Tort 22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Errors on page about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Hi Rockpocket: I'm the communications director for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and I've noted a number of serious errors on the page about our organization. These problems need to be fixed right away. What is the best way to proceed?

Thanks.

Patrick Sullivan psullivan@pcrm.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.174.91 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

wotcha rockpocket

hi Rockpocket, me and mine are generally ok, have not been active due to being off work long term. Some crazy shit happened a few months ago, and perry Jr was not at all well. Jr now fitting fit (our little Lionheart) and the family is looking forward to christmas. Congrats on the nature article, mmm mouse piss... you and yours have a good one and hopefully my inane and unhelpful comments will return to the ref pages soon wahoo!Perry-mankster (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Claus Wedekind

He seems to be known for a good deal of other work as well, so I removed the Prod. You might want to add some of it from his CV, and perhaps a citation count from Web of Science. Which would be the best article if he were known only for that work is an interesting & unsettled question. Some would go with an article on the specific study, but I would generally prefer the scientist, because the scientist is the article likely to be expanded.. However, in this case there isn't really much doubt that he should have a separate article-- He seems to be primarily an authority on sperm competition in fish. My guess is that the Tshirt study was done as a diversion, & got picked up as interesting--certainly most people might think it more interesting than his main subect. The eds. judgment there is not infallible:), but I think he was right this time. DGG (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

followed up on my user talk page.DGG (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Using Wikiversity Appropriately

Rockpocket, I wanted to thank you personally for recommending that A.Z. come learn and contribute to Wikiversity while he sorts out issues with arbcom, perhaps overly zealous editors, and learns how to interact more effectively with wiki communities. I view it as a large learning opportunity for the current Wikiversity community attempting to grow the community and develop methods sufficient to run a large set of virtual distributed learning environments via wikimedia and other software and the internet. Below I have attempted to award you a Wikiversity Barnstar. I am not certain that it will work accross wikis so I will tell you verbally it is the basic barnstar. No, syntax appears different. Text gets point accross however, 3 is current the "Shooting Star". Nice shot! 8) Thanks again and keep up the good work! v:user:mirwin 26 Dec 07

		The shooting barnstar
		Pointing potential learners to Wikiversity, improving both environments simultaneously. Synergy! Lazyquasar (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Troubles Arbcom

Thanks for the concern Rockpocket, appreciated. I have no idea where to find the "ruling" - could you give me a link? Call me St Thomas, but I need to study it myself - I appear to mis-remember it - I was sure it said IPs could be reverted at will. (And if it didn't it certainly should have 'cos the present mess only facilitates puppets etc. Happy New Year; I will strive not to get blocked - but you know me! (Sarah777 (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

RfC user:A.Z.

My understanding is that they want us to contact ArbCom in private. However, my understanding of policy also shows that an RfC could be used if there are 2 people that object to the conduct of a user. --CyclePat (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Troubles Arbcom again

Hi. There was an "War-box" added to The Troubles article without any consensus and despite the history of the article. I changed it to reflect a more acceptable (to me) version pending discussion and agreement. User:Traditional unionist simply reverted my change within seconds; I reinstated and he reverted again, threatening to "report me" if I changed it back. Now Trad U is a named participant at the Troubles Workshop and is under very clear, strict and unambiguous orders to make no more than one revert per week:

"2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert."

As I have been twice blocked once, without any relief, for accidentally breaching 3RR I call on you to block User:Traditional unionist for breaching his terms of probation. (What he did was clear edit-warring in any case - but this is an automatic like 3RR, or else it means nothing).

Regards (Sarah777 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

As his last revert was illegal, either you should revert it or I should be allowed to do so; or better still - remove the box until it is discussed and agreed. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

I really resent your tone when responding to this. Sarah was attempting to ignore the principle of discussion and consensus, which I was protecting the page from. Yet I am being implicated for edit warring. I am not the problem in this instance and resent the implication that I am.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

TU; you were warring with Domer and breached 3RR for crissakes! None of us here are Saints. Did I not already apologise to you? (Sarah777 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

I didn't mean to implicate you were the problem, TU. I was trying to explain that edit-warring is a problem and it takes more than one person to edit-war. Editors almost always consider their actions are to "protect the page" from something, with editors on the other side attempting to do the same. That is what leads to an editor war. Whether Sarah was most at fault in this particular instance is rather beside the point. You were blocked for edit-warring on another page at the same time, suggesting that you are as willing to edit-war as she is. Unless vandalism is involved, hitting the revert button more than once in succession is almost never a good idea. If you both followed WP:BRD, then this problem would go away. Rockpocket 20:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer v Admins and others

Hi Rockpocket, sorry to return so quickly to this issue but if my reading of this is correct Domer is being hounded a bit. This was something he posted on another page User talk:Heimstern:

I feel I must respond to the above editor, and possibly you might have some advice. On the Kevin Barry article they abuse their admin tools , and then had to be warned about it. They follow me to the Segi article and start there, adding things to referenced text. They then go and block me. Admin John was decent enough to provide the diff's. While other editors noted the COI (they did not respond), which is an abuse of admin tools, admin SirFozzie was the only one who would agreed that the Diff's did show they were for different things (not the same edit). I did not even get put on a 3rr report. I reported them for a 3 rr same situation, and they walk away from it. It then got to the stage were Fozz gave them a strong warning, which they ignored, and told Admin John to to leave their incivility in a post. Regardless of all this they still can not be civil. It was as a result of this that I learn that they have a history of this. Another Admin had to step in on the Patrick Pearsearticle. They Block another editor, and thought light of it. And have been pulled judging from a page littered with civility warnings. Now they have followed me to more articles Irish Volunteers, Sean Heuston, Thomas Clarke, Easter Rising, Roger Casement and the afore mentioned Patrick Pearse article. Having filed another 3 rr notice still were not blocked for edit warring. And still the abuse because I read. Then their buddy jumps in notice the last revert on this article. To top it all they abused their admin tool to edit an article which was protected despite no agreement reached, and dispite being warned not to. Admin SirFozzie started an AN/I report which went no were, and is still hanging in the air. They now accuse me of being an IRA supporter because I like to edit Republican history articles. So if I got the hump with your block, you may now understand. Any advice would be welcome, could you please post on my talk page.--Domer48 (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought tailing an editor across Wiki was verboten? Should I maybe take a keen interest in some of these editor's work? This will lead to chaos unless someone calls a halt. I would be interested in your considered views on the situation - I have no suggestion what to do as I don't know at this stage. (Sarah777 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

Easter Rising - warring

Tag-team edit warring by Aatomic1 and R fiend continues on this article:

1. (cur) (last) 14:57, January 1, 2008 Aatomic1 (Talk | contribs) (40,178 bytes) (Synthesizing states that Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing.) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 13:48, January 1, 2008 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (39,905 bytes) (→Planning the Rising - As per discussion, please read WP:SYN, and WP:OR. Please provide a definitive statement) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 21:46, December 31, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) (40,178 bytes) (clarify opening (plus grammar)) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 08:55, December 31, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) m (40,162 bytes) (→Planning the Rising) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 01:17, December 31, 2007 Aatomic1 (Talk | contribs) (40,158 bytes) (Reinsert referenced material) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 00:58, December 31, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (39,885 bytes) (Please read WP:SYN and WP:OR, please use the talk page) (undo)
7. (cur) (last) 23:00, December 30, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) m (40,158 bytes) (Reverted edits by Domer48 (talk) to last version by R. fiend) (undo)
8. (cur) (last) 22:43, December 30, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (39,885 bytes) (Please read WP:SYN and WP:OR, please use the talk page) (undo)
9. (cur) (last) 19:08, December 30, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) (40,158 bytes) (see talk) (undo)
10. (cur) (last) 20:00, December 29, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (39,885 bytes) (Says no such thing. Put it up on the talk page, and let editors see what it says) (undo)
11. (cur) (last) 19:43, December 29, 2007 R. fiend (Talk | contribs) (40,158 bytes) (undo)

(Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC))

My recent edits

Hello Rockpocket. I appreciate your support & patience. I'm sorry to take up more of your time, but I'd like to answer the constructive criticisms you've made on my talk page.

"Even if the other editor is rude to you, replying in kind is not acceptable." My harsh words have been restricted to those who, in my opinion, have gratuitously vandalised my edits, for example by repeatedly removing both article content and the reference I'd provided for it at the same time as accusing me of never providing references. Where editors with doubts about my contributions have dealt with me courteously I've responded politely and constructively.

"Please not that WP should state facts, not explain, justify or reason... value judgements and reflect your opinion." I realised that this passage was likely to cause problems on these grounds & so replaced it with one that only reports fact & does not contain judgements of mine some time before you contacted me about this. I had previously made a similar voluntary revision to a potentially problematic passage I'd added to another page.

"Finally, when adding controversial or historical content, you must cite a reliable source." I *have* been doing so, other than for the Sands football song & where I've linked to other articles. *All* the info I've added has been verifiable by reference either to works that were already in the articles' bibliographies that I happen to have read or to books that I've added to said bibliographies. Unfortunately, I can't prevent other editors from repeatedly claiming in edit summaries, entirely falsely, that my info is unsourced, or prevent them from deleting the references I've added.

"A link to another article is not sufficient." I'll take this on board as of now. I had only relied upon links to other WP articles where I was 100% confident from my knowledge of sources outwith WP that the info in the other articles was accurate & verifiable.

I'm sure you've spent enough time on me as you care to, but I felt I had to respond as you seemed to have been taken in by the false, & I believe malicious, accusations that contributions weren't covered by works that had been referenced.80.229.9.98 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, & sorry for asking for more of your time & energy. I don't plan to make a habit of this, but I'd like to ask how you suggest I proceed in the case of a particular difference of opinion...

I recently edited the William Wallace article. I now find that RiverHockey has removed the text...

"One very prominent error is the depiction of Wallace as a kilted Gael rather than the Anglophonic lowlander that he was (the 'nationalisation' of Gaelic culture and popular generalisation that Scotland as a whole is 'Celtic' date from the eithteenth century)."

...& given the edit summary "remove biased entry from troublesome user...".

I don't understand the accusation of bias because I really can't see what bias is being alleged. In the light of what I've put in edit summaries, I'm not about to complain about being called a "troublesome user" - its significance here is that I don't believe I'll get a reasonable response from RiverHockey if I just ask for an explanation. I did have a spat with RiverHockey on the Battle of Culloden talk page, but I've since attempted to improve the tone between us on that page & it certainly isn't something that need spill over into discussion of an unrelated article.

My instinct is to undo RiverHockey's edit with "See talk" in the summary & ask on the talk page what the problem is, but I'm not sure at what point reverting becomes an edit war. An alternative would be for me to leave the article as it currently is for the mo', but ask for an explanation of the allegation of bias on the talk page & say that if bias can't be established reasonably swiftly then I'll restore the text.

Thanks in anticipation for your advice.80.229.9.98 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply here simply to keep the conversation together. There is not really a good justification for his reversion, so I have reverted back and asked RiverHockey to discuss his problems on the talk page. If you adopt a collegial tone with him and try to work with him to address his issues, then he should reply favourably. If he doesn't then he is the one being troublesome, since you appear to had added good sourced content. I find WP:BRD a really good way to edit. Be bold, but if someone reverts then don't re-revert, instead engage with them, ask then specifically what the problem is and how you can address it. Work them around, then make the agreed change with their support. That way you build relationships, which builds trust, which builds good articles.

I note that on the same article you and RepublicanJacobite worked together to add some material. Thats how it should work and will go some way to show other editors of your intentions. I may take time, but stay patient and turn the other cheek to comments like the "troublesome user" one. Rockpocket 08:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for watching the debate. I have just joined wikipedia (new years vow of all things) but followed the meta-stuff for years. But in practice it is a bit different. I am kinda worried about how RS, FRINGE, UNDUE and NPOV (amongst others) are being used to detract from content and rather push an overall POV of the article. It seems you are doing a great job on focusing on this aspect, so kudos. In this case Hrafn has been editing the biopsychiatry controversy article singlehandedly for a too long time and already chased away the "owner" of the article. Not a good start on my wiki career this. : \ --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

William Wallace

His edits are based on an online source that holds no merit. I can make 10 such pages and upload them online tonight. Since I can not upload any books for you, this site seems to hold more truth. [3] -RiverHockey (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, my edits are actually based on the knowledge I've acquired as a proper, academic Scottish historian - the online source was already cited when I began my editing & just happens to mention the basic facts that I've added. Also, there seems to be some confusion on RiverHockey's part about the actual meaning of what I added. I described Wallace as an Anglophonic lowlander, i.e. someone from the lowlands whose first language was [Middle] English (what a modern commentator might call 'medieval Scots). I made no comment whatsoever on his ancestry. Incidentally, the account on the website to which RiverHockey has linked ignores the very good possibility that Wallace's family got their name from being descended from the native Brythonic population of southern Scotland - the so-called 'Strathclyde Welsh' - rather than because they'd migrated from Wales to Scotland. That's not especially surprising as that account is decidedly amateurish in tone & was probably written by someone with such poor knowledge of the ethnographic history of early medieval Scotland that they'd never even heard of the Strathclyde Welsh.80.229.9.98 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That was one of many sources that I pulled up for convenience. I will work with you on Wallace, but your Battle of Culloden edits seem to only provide justification for the Hanoverian atrocities. I don't care if you've cited books related to Covenant Theology, they are obviously going to defend their faith and it's advocates reputations. I can publish a book that claims that the World is Flat, but that does not make it any more true. I believe this to be an example of "History being written by the winner." Of course atrocities were committed on both sides, but unconfirmed excuses shouldn't be incorporated such as you did within Battle of Culloden. Lastly, the Jacobites did not routinely rape, burn families from homes, or provide no quarter like their English enemies. Although I am Catholic, I am not Scottish, of Jacobite ancestry, and my partner happens to be a Presbyterian, so I have no deep seated hatred for Covenanters, etc. (as you've implied such sentimental attachments may have clouded my judgment on my talk page).-RiverHockey (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You've made much the same claims & allegations on the Culloden talk page & I've responded there. I suggest that we no longer clog up Rockpocket's talk page as it was only the Wallace issue that brought us here & that's now settled. As for what pro-Stuart thugs routinely did, I strongly suggest that you do a lot more reading on Scotland under the later Stuarts.80.229.9.98 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Cesar Tort pulling out

It seems Cesar is quitting the project again (as he says on my talk page). It is sad, because he is certainly a more focused editor I am. (Especially since I am still learning how to cite properly). I think the core of the issue is that Hrafn thinks only scientific literature counts as valid in this debate, but I am unsure on how to characterize the debate. Perhaps the best option is after all to turn it into a generic "Controversies in psychiatry" since this could include more facets of the debate, especially since the critics are known to criticize many aspects of psychiatry, not just the bio-psychiatry aspect. This could also help keeping out controversies out of the otherwise good psychiatry article. Anyway, it seems like I have to do the reintroduction of sources that Hrafn removed. Though this will be problematic since I myself can't do verification. Especially I disagree with his opinion that the sources are "partisan" considering; obviously people criticizing the hegemony won't be mainstream, that's the point! Caser Tort has a critique on this on his talk page. Thanks for the help again. :) --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was recently researching on journals, and came a across several articles. And since found many interesting articles done by informed skeptics. I looked up the organization but when I look up the diff between now and a random old one I feel it is heavily biased. I didn't know SCICOP was an RS, since I feel they usually just give out opinions. diff

When I read the old version, I looked up the journal and figured out that this was right. I even saw they were featured on a science program here in norway. They do generate new empirical evidence so I don't see why they are criticized. For example I found an highly interesting article on analysis on errors done in telepathic research that lead me to a stub on economics here on wikipedia.

Anyway, it does seem we are slowly improving the biopsychiatry controversy article. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point

Nice one. I will try to have more faith in the ability of the community as a whole to deal with these problems. I've been getting back into editing Irish and troubles related articles and allowing myself to get annoyed by the unreasonableness of some people. See here for example. Must every Irish article become a battleground and achieve consensus only at the expense of sacrificing article quality? I appreciate your voice of reason, as always, in this fraught area. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

'Scuse my butting in but this conversation indicates why many Irish editors are so wary of Admins! Someone who feels that deleting a ref to "British Isles" in an Irish article as "surreal" really doesn't get it - and certainly could not be safely regarded as psychologically capable of neutrality in relation to Irish articles. And as for "improving the quality of the article"!!! Whoever tried to insert that term was the person attacking article quality. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

John may be an admin but neutral he is not. He has shown his hand on a number of occasions. Take anything he says with a pinch of salt and just remember the slant and often intentionally provokative stand point that he comes from.--Vintagekits (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was having similar discussion with an Irish friend in a bar last night. I honestly don't think we will be able to stop these articles resembling a battleground. Despite the speculation of those with an axe to grind, I am neither British nor Irish (nor, for that matter, American). I find it amazing that, on different occasions, I have been accused of being all three simply because of an edit I made to an Ireland related article. This tells me that, among certain editors on certain subjects, no edit will ever be assessed without attributing motive to the editor (a case in point in this very thread). With that inherent assumption, I don't believe we will ever see this ongoing situation resolved. The best we can perhaps hope for is a level of civility among those fighting those battles.

Whether or not that can be approached and resolved by the community alone, I don't know. But I guess was have an ArbCom remedy that, as the moment, is not really being widely implemented. This is due, in part I believe, to the fact that prior admin action under that remedy was turned into a cause célèbre by certain anti-admin activists. However, I happen to have faith in the system. I think the wheels will continue to turn slowly, but eventually those people who are unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms will be weeded out. I expect even then it will still be a battleground, but at least it might be a slightly more policy compliant one! Rockpocket 04:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket; my comments were directed at John rather than you. I did not support the defrocking of R fiend (proposed) but I must point out it was for Admin abuse, not POV or edit warring. Some Admins seem to be gliding over that point. I would also reiterate (cos I'm not coy about naming names) that I could not regard John as neutral in Irish/British pov issues. I ask that yourself and John be equally open and name those you consider "unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms"; part of the "lynch mob" (John on the R fiend page); "anti-admin activists". When I read such wild talk from Admins (of whatever nationality) - I must wonder why anyone is surprised that some of us are a bit "Admin-wary". Sarah777 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider the assertion that there are people involved in this may be "unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms" to be "wild talk". There was, you may remember, an RfAR naming a large number of editors for that very reason. Insults, revert-warring, threats, sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry are all in violation of community norms, and these were all documented. Those editors that continue with this behaviour are, I believe, the ones that will "eventually" be "weeded out". Exactly who, if anyone, this is remains to be determined. The comment was addressing John's concern about disruptive editors taking heart from the R fiend situation. The only thing one should take from that is that it is wrong to misuse tools, anyone who sees this as an endorsement of disruptive tactics will eventually get what's coming to them.

Regarding the "anti-admin activists", I was referring to Giano, in particular, and a number of his acolytes in general. Giano's self adopted role as advocate-to-the-wronged (in his opinion) appears to be reaching its inevitable conclusion. As righteous as his motives may be, his methods are disruptive. He too appears unable or unwilling to adhere to community norms.

I don't endorse any reference to a "lynch mob". I think the recent RfC and ArbCom has been a fair process. It shows that admins are not free to use their tools anyway they please, that admins do not "stick together", and that we serve the community and must listen to what the community says. Please don't misunderstand me: I don't believe poor behaviour from other editors in this (and I don't know if there was) in anyway mitigates the misuse of tools. R fiend lost the trust of the community and, rightly, needs to earn it again if he wishes to be an admin. However, if there was poor behaviour from others, maybe it should be addressed, and we have ways of doing that. Rockpocket 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket, firstly I must point out that it was not John who implied the referrals of R fiend was the activity of a lynch mob; it was two others (one of whom recently failed to be appointed an Admin). Secondly I don't share your view of Giano and was one of the over 300(?) well-established editors who recently voted for him. We differ on many things but I do realise there are very good Admins around and obviously I'd count you among them as I've said before (I think). And as I would John btw; just not his neutrality on the whole British/Irish thing. Finally, while it appears R has a history blocking in disputes he is involved in (a pet hate of mine from personal experience) and that was what caused him the problems the actual edit that led to his problems was utterly faultless - so if the system works it works in mysterious ways. (Sarah777 (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

I thought that language was a bit extreme for John, I see you have said your lines in penance ;) I think Domer is taking the right approach, here. If there is concern about his role in all of this, a seperate RfC is probably the best place to discuss it. Rockpocket 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

new RD-inspired article

Please apply the template (I forget what it is) to WP:RD/M#Automatic Center Punch, and update your index! —Steve Summit (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks! The index on the WPRDAC page is a bit out of date, I'll sort that out later this week. Rockpocket 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Attention please

Rockpocket, you have got to do something about this warring Admin - he is obviously angling for an excuse to block me. See latest edit:

   * (cur) (last)  11:12, 20 January 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (40,766 bytes) (philip, PLEASE STOP edit warring) (undo)
   * (cur) (last) 11:08, 20 January 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (Talk | contribs) (39,194 bytes) (→List of known massacres - removed Fallujah for further discussion on the talk page.) (undo) 

• I'm out of reverts.

Sarah777 (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres immediate edit requested

Hi - would appreciate it if you would look at Talk: List of massacres where I'm requesting an immediate edit to add the Babi Yar massacre that has more than the required number of citations and is not controversial: Sarah had marked it originally because it only was showing one citation, and she agrees that there are more than enough now. This has nothing to do with Fallujah, and belongs in the article. I could list dozens more citations - this one is not controversial. I'll be glad to make the edit if you want to give me an open window of five minutes to do it - I'm not going to touch anything else. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tvoz. Considering the acrimony and edit-warring that has been brewing on that page, I would rather wait a while to ensure there is no major objections forthcoming (though, I don't expect there will be. It looks appropriate to me). If no-one protests, I will make the edit later today or tomorrow. I'm kind of hoping that the problems on this page can be solved on a case by case basis. Rockpocket 19:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I think Greysteel is fine too. Tvoz |talk 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Thanks for adding those two - I agree with your sense that case-by-case may be the only way we can solve the problem of the page. About Greysteel - I went over the first four citations and re-wrote them into the "cite news" format so that the footnotes can display the article titles, etc - and I found a better url for one of them - same article, just a better url. So, could you replace what's there with this? Thanks Tvoz |talk 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Date	Location	Name	Deaths	Description
1993, 30 October	Greysteel, County Londonderry, Northern Ireland	Greysteel massacre	8	Ulster Freedom Fighters open fire in a crowded bar using an AK-47 and automatic pistol

Can you advise?

A while back I went through all the RFCs (History & geography) - just going back through them and saw this one Talk:Republic of Serbian Krajina#Croatian sources and WP:NPOV. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Not worth bothering about. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fear of fish

Please never ever delete valid content from wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on your page. Rockpocket 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"could have its own article" - exactly. Please assume good faith and believe me that it was not my fantasy. Unfortunately I am kinda busy now. Let us discuss the issue a bit later (this is not a matter life and death nor political obsession, so it can wait). I am dealing with all these phobia topics for quite some time and I have solid reasons to do what I did. `'Míkka>t 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you did, which was why I didn't challenge your speedy deletion without a rationale at the time, preferring to find sources and rewrite with verifiable content. I also had solid reasons for moving the article, as I explained. I would have appreciated you discussing those, rather than move-warring and leaving a curt and inappropriate message. I look forward to hearing why fear of fish is preferable to ichtyophobia (a term used in at least 6 reliable sources, including a psychology textbook). Rockpocket 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New Semester, New Appeal

This semester I am teaching academic writing to a group of teachers at my school. This course starts on Monday Jan 28. I would like to know if you are still interesting in "mentoring". You can see the syllabus at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/SyllabusIf so, please leave a message on my talk page and update the mentor's page Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors, if . If not, please remove your name and information from that page. Thanks! Thelmadatter (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry O'Callaghan‎

Usual nonsense from you. THose AfD were overturned because the delete votes and the nominator was a bigotted banned user!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you direct me to that discussion/decision, please?

No I couldnt!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I can find no evidence provided that an Afd was "overturned", as you say, and you are unwilling to direct me to the evidence then I am left with no choice to revert back to the AfD decision. I'll give you a few more minutes. Rockpocket 00:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Seek and you shall find - nothing shall be handed to those to eager to follow my edits!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So, just to be absolutely clear - you have reverted my good faith edits which I fully explained in the edit summary - based on some evidence that you refuse to divulge to make some sort of WP:POINT. Again, I'll give you another chance to please provide evidence that this AfD was "overturned" before I re-revert. Please stop playing games. Rockpocket 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Gerry O'Callaghan‎ on yer watch list as well? lol!!! Ask ONiH about those AfD's if your soooooooooo wooried about it. --Vintagekits (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PLAYING GAMES!!! You are the one following me around like a fuckin stink! Your the one playing games! --Vintagekits (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Talk:Patrick Joseph Kelly, all the AfDs involved substantial sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/O'Donoghue. Granted it's slightly out of process unmerging the other articles without asking, but we don't want to get bogged down in red tape and I don't believe it's unreasonable to give VK a short amount of time to improve the articles to where they are capable of being standalone articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ONiH. Seems like a good call from Quarl. I have no issue with Vk being bold and improving those articles based on Quarl's statement. However, The lack of informative edit summaries and purposely obtuse responses to perfectly valid requests simply result in more drama, and draw Vk ever closer to a return to ArbCom. Its like watching a moth to a flame. Rockpocket 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom would laugh in yer face like they did last time! I know it pisses you off big style to see me editing on wiki - infact I delight in yer displeasure - what you should real do is stop obsessing about me and actually create an article for a change instead of following me about like a lost wee five year old girl. Oiche mhaith a chara.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat disturbed that you seem to think the above exchange, not to mention you behaviour over the last few days is acceptable editing behaviour.

On the basis of your parole: "...limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility." I, and by the looks of it other admins, would say you have managed the trifecta this evening alone. Thats some going, even for you.

I'm not interested in "stalking" you, I'm interested in keeping the project in the best shape I can. When I see poor grammar, incorrect spelling, malformed templates or reverting of AFD decisions without justification, I'm going to fix it. I would, and do, do the same for any editor and I would expect any other editor to do the same to my edits. Ignoring problems just because you can't handle your edits being corrected by me is not acceptable. I'm sorry, but since no-one else is fixing those problems, then I will do it. You don't have to like anyone around here, but you do have to accept that other editors will edit your contributions mercilessly and respect their prerogative to do that without losing you temper and being incivil. If you can't trust yourself do that, then you are the one with the problem and you are the one that needs to fix it. Rockpocket 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. Back away from the edge, Vk. If you go any further down this path you can put your ArbCom prediction to the test and I'm not currently seeing support from anyone for your version of events. Rockpocket 02:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Troubles

If I were a member of the WP constabulary -if there were a WP constabulary-, I would be marching steadily in the other direction. This all has the feel of a series of domestic-violence incidents. Bielle (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my world, Bielle ;). The on-wiki stuff is only the half of it. I have my own Republican stalker, you know, whose mission it is to out me on the world wide web as an obsessive compulsive Unionist, and I occasionally get abusive email too, presumably from the same person. Still, the large salary and a comfy window seat in the Admin lounge make up for all the hassle. Rockpocket 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am presuming that to be so outed is not a good thing. Certainly being stalked is not a good thing. Does it matter if being an o.c. Unionist is true or not? (I am of the "publish and be damned" school myself.) I wonder what would happen if everybody, absolutely everybody, currently caught up in the WP Troubles were to just walk away and not look back. And then there is what price sanity, comfy seats and fat salary or not? Bielle (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, when people make physical threats against me, I would prefer they make them against Rockpocket rather than the name I share with my wife and family. Moreover, certain editors central to this issue have taken to publishing the addresses of people that they are have a problem with. I would rather that not happen, especially since there has been cases where wiki-stalking has led to credible real life threats, resulting in jail time for the perpetrator. Intimidation can take many forms.

Some people will not walk away from this subject for the same reason some people will never accept the Northern Irish peace process. Its not about writing an encyclopedia for (most) of them, its about continuing the good fight. Rockpocket 22:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, while not saying it's in any way comparable to real-life threats there is (as I have discovered, again) a Wiki-establishment that gets a bit power-crazed, full of their own importance and have no hesitation in abusing that power to protect that sense of self-importance like some puffed-up octogenarian Justice on the Bench. We all have our crosses to bear, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we do, Sarah. I have offered a comment about your recent problems on your talk page, for what its worth. Rockpocket 00:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Rockpocket, I am deeply sorry for what has been happening. It puts my own (comparatively modest) abusive email correspondent in perspective. No amount of comfy seats and high admin salary justifies this sort of thing. Sarah, stuff like this probably isn't helping the situation. Best wishes to all. --John (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John, but it isn't so bad, many other admins have much worse stalking problems. I have been working with some stalking victims and people from the Foundation on this subject, some of the stories would make your hair stand on end. Genuinely disturbing. Mine is a bit of an amateur (and for the record, I very much doubt it is Vk - I don't want that accusation pinned on me too).

I understand what point you are trying to make, Sarah, but it isn't helpful. I find it interesting that Vk claims four editors have emailed him in support of his allegations, yet the same people don't feel compelled to say so publicly. Thats pretty cowardly, in my opinion. I 5 people believe I have been stalking Vk then I would ask them to put it in an RfC rather than namecalling.

Vk seems to have begin to sense that his current stance is not going to fly, yet the personal attacks continue from the safety of "his" pages [4]. I wonder how many consecutive blocks it will take before the message gets through? Rockpocket 06:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool it chaps. Two things; the only emails I have sent to anyone (Wikiwise) in the past 6 months are some to Fozzie the other day and, for the record as this is all getting a bit nasty I had nothing to do with the Anon IP post you just removed. (The few IP contributions I've ever made were always signed with my name). I don't have any issues with Rockpocket at all - but there is a remarkable similarity between the reasons Vk gets into bother and my own problems, apart from a shared perspective on some political issues. I know there are other issues and I have made it abundantly clear where I stand on the issue of threats back at the Arbcom; I admit I haven't been following the Vk story very closely recently - are there suggestions of "new" threats? But certainly the issue of "incivility" under provocation is a thing I (obviously) don't think some Admins (not including Rockpocket btw) are tackling very well and I saw the block for incivility as unjustified based on the words quoted. Sarah777 (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I wasn't suggesting you had sent an email. I was trying to point out that Vk seems to believe "normal editors" support him, yet there is a process for "normal editors" to have their say (WP:RfC, which I have been encouraging) yet no-one appears to use that, preferring to stir anonymously and by email while saying something different on-wiki. That is what I find cowardly. If I am guilty of what Vk alleges, then its a serious issue and it should be addressed. RfC is the place to do that. You, to your credit, don't seem to have a problem saying what you think.

Also, just to be clear, there are no new threats from Vk directly. This incident is about incivility and personal attacks, not a re-occurance of those threats. The off-wiki stalking, threats and posting of personal information has been happening in parallel, since the ArbCom. I don't know who is behind that, but the fact it is Trouble related tends to narrow down the candidates. I have my suspicions, but without evidence would not make any specific allegations. Rockpocket 19:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems, problems, problems

Now I know for a fact that plenty of admins will have seen this message, considering the page it was left on. Not a word was said about it though. I don't think this sort of thing is particularly helpful.

Synthesis being added. Paul Butler said there was a "campaign against properties belonging to the Orange Order and other loyal institutions [by nationalists]", and that was combined with this source to add a fact that was in neither source, see the talk page discussion. In fact there's a particularly hurtful personal attack on me in that section too - "but try to edit constructively rather than try to remove info that is in your partisan interests to" - hurtful in the sense I fell off my chair laughing. Not a word was really said about either. That's not a criticism of Foz as I've already discussed it with him and I know he tends to take a more laid back approach, but it's still problematic. Note in that discussion TU said here that Paul Butler (a nationalist, obviously) is a reliable source. Which brings me nicely onto....

This discussion, with comments such as this describing the authors of sources as "three bigots" and this saying "Two of these three authors, are Irish nationalists". So let's just rewind to the above shall we? If Paul Butler (writing a letter to a newspaper!) is a reliable source, then surely published books by nationalists are equally reliable? Or is it a case of nationalists are only reliable sources if they say something TU agrees with?

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Oh and with Foz on break, I'd recommend some more eyes on the Orange Institution, it's a hotbed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As below, I need to shoot out for a while, I'll respond when I get back. Rockpocket 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So I have had a look at the article and the incident you refer to and I agree you have a point. There probably was synthesis there, but I see no evidence it was malicious, simply an editor reading something through their POV. TU says as much himself, and that sort of thing happens on both sides and its up to others to point it out and help correct it. It becomes an admin matter if the editor does it repeatedly and persistently. It looks like Fozzie took a hand in that, so what exactly is the problem, that I personally didn't get involved? I have not made an edit to that page since 2006, before I cleaned my watch list. Thats why. I'll keep an eye on the Orange Institution if you would like, and feel free to let me know if you have problems with this editor and synthesis again and I will see what I can do.

You point out a few examples of unhelpful comments, and true enough, much of them are not particularly constructive and most are inflammatory. I had noticed the one on Vk's page, and considered it a pretty mild bit of sarcasm that goes on all the time between these editors. The others are new to me. But I note you are not above these sorts of comments yourself. Adding "...instead of pretending the OO don't torch their own halls for the insurance money or to gain sympathy" will inflame an situation rather than solve it, and I'm sure you were well aware of that. If you point is that he was making assumptions not supported by the source, then why on earth would you make an assumption to back it up (and one that you knew would be inflammatory at that!)

All these sorts of comments are a real hindrance to solving content disputes. As soon as one is made, the red mist descends and solving the dispute becomes unlikely, because it is no longer about that facts, it becomes personal. You totally shot yourself in the foot with that comment, because you were completely correct, yet managed to make yourself look as biased for the sake of a dig. Rockpocket 02:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I'll hold my hands up to the off the cuff remark but I consider it a far lesser problem than what I was attempting to address. However there's also some history it would have been more helpful if I'd provided it:

• [5] I originally removed the Republican/Nationalist claim (unsourced at the time) and asked for clarity, rather than the meaningless terms in the article.
• [6] TU then equates one incident of one OSF member (not a SF member) to add "on occasions by members of Sinn Fein"
• [7] I re-add the (possibly accidentally) removed tag and re-write per the source.

So as you can see it's something he's been wanting to add something along those lines for while...

Back on the subject of biased sources, how about this? Note there's one article by one person, nice weasel wording of "some" wouldn't you agree? The article is written by one Newton Emerson , who is described here as a Unionist and (worse still!) a "net satirist" (but who's "well-respected" according to his article here.....). Now I don't really want to get involved on an edit war on that article, but is a term sourced only by a "net satirist" and blogs and the like really suitable for inclusion?

Now onto Bobby Sands, where a proper old argument ensued a while ago.

• [8] That started it, please be sure to check the sources provided.
• [9] I reworded it per the sources
• [10] And in return I get this message on the talk page (I won't post any more talk page diffs, it's lengthy....), saying "The sources DO say that, your edit can clearly be seen as POV - the rioters cause the deaths of those two people, their deaths were as a direct result of rioters"

As far as I'm concerned, my edit reflected exactly what the sources said without any embellishment or assumptions, and in return I get accsed of making a POV edit when it reflected exactly what the source said. That's the mentality I'm up against here, where people are intent on adding what they think an article should say and embellishing sources to suit their POV. And it is pretty high volume, I'm not just using a couple of isolated incidents.

And tangentially related, this is a telling diff. Nice and simple yet still hasn't been done, makes you question the motives of some editors really doesn't it?

And just to address some of your points. No, of course the problem isn't that you didn't get involved. It's just a good example of how priorities seem to differ. I consider that if edits such as that are allowed to go unchecked the encyclopedia is damaged. The subtle or blatant introduction of bias from editors who are known to be biased causes problems, and if you don't believe me look how all this came about in the first place. If you check back through to early 2007 (possibly late 2006) you'll see that VK attempted to remove what he considered POV from certain articles (unattributed use of terrorist, atrocity, murder etc etc). This was fiercely opposed by some British (and assorted other) editors, and the dispute raged and raged from there. While his methods might be at times as wrong as you can get (and I invite you to read the second sentence of my statement here), ultimately what he was trying to say was proved to be right. Nobody wants a Troubles ArbCom round 2, but if round 1 hasn't drawn a line in the sand then it's inevitable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he has made substantial contributions is probably the only reason he's still allowed to be here with conduct that would normally result in an indef block. Tyrenius (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another choice remark for someone to hold their hands up to... "Funny, most fascists I came across weren't rehabilitated using that method, I found a crowbar worked best!"[11] I spotted it, but confess I lamentably failed to warn the user. Tyrenius (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have just laughed at you and asked you enforce the Troubles remedies to stop content being compromised. Harsh, but true. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So you consider that's quite acceptable to say. Most editors think what they say and do is quite acceptable. It's only when others say and do them that it becomes unacceptable. Tyrenius (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I said that did I? I just think your time would be better served looking after content that nitpicking. Speaking of content, you really should be more careful yourself. For example you made this edit to change "successful", yet neglected to change "One of the most widely publicised failures" which was in the lead. Strangely enough TU wasn't complaining about that phrase, he only objected to "successful", how odd!!! Never mind though, I fixed it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not nitpicking. I'm giving some wider context to your criticisms about other editors which you found inappropriate and a "particularly hurtful personal attack" about "partisan interests". Rockpocket has already pointed to one inflammatory comment you made. I pointed to another. It's no good criticising others, if you do the same thing yourself (and then blame admins for not dealing with the others, but shrug it off when your action is pointed to). This is a widespread editor syndrome of double standards. I am not by any means singling you out as the worst culprit, but, as evidenced, you are not exempt. You have singled out an edit by me which you seem to agree with, so I improved the article. The fact it needed further improvement is not something to lay at my door. Tyrenius (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just found out the significance of your edit summary "No platform" on your talk page, as in No Platform, to delete attempts at dialogue from a user.[12][13][14][15] That is not helpful, to say the least. Tyrenius (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I note on Talk:British National Party you advocate putting "Fascism" in the infobox on the basis that there are four sources describing them in this way. As there are numerous sources describing the Provisional Irish Republican Army as "terrorist", do you likewise advocate putting "terrorist" in that infobox? As there are at least four sources describing the death of Norman Stronge as "murder", do you accept this as the valid definitive statement? If not, then you seem to be adopting inconsistent standards and are guilty of the POV editing you state you are keen to address in other users. Tyrenius (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology, Terrorism, in the modern sense, is violence, the threat of violence. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought. Provisional Irish Republican Army is described as a terrorist organisation by the government the United Kingdom. The European Union has taken the IRA off their lists of terrorist organisations. I don't think ONIH is guilty of the POV editing, according to wikipedia, but you really seem to be trying to make a WP:POINT --Domer48 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

PS, Nice to see you back Tyrenius. --Domer48 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it will be for a short a time as I can make it though (nothing personal). But you have misunderstood WP:POINT, which is about disruptive editing. It advocates " points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way". I am quite serious in what I've said above. Tyrenius (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not seeing this going anywhere helpful. We have all said things on occasion that, on balance, were probably not the most constructive. (Yes, even I have, and I am damn near perfect, don't you know).

Pointing out examples doesn't prove much, except to note that no-one is above it. The issue here is persistence. If, after being warned time and time again you continue with a problematic behaviour then its time to take action. As Tyr points out, there is now WP:TER to enable one to document examples. Please use it and we can begin to sort this out. Rockpocket 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody can ever say you don't have an interesting talkpage Rockpocket. Entertainment at its Wiki-best - all the best troublemakers come here :-) Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP

This anon IP is changing the images on the Politics of Northern Ireland templates without any discussion or attempting to achieve consensus for these changes, he is the fourth or fifth IP in this range to try and do this over the past few week all from the same IP range the others have all been blocked for this, can you look into it.--Padraig (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have warned him to stop. I have to shoot out for a half hour. If he continues, feel free to revert without risk of 3RR (it has now reached the point of vandalism. If someone warns you about 3RR, direct them here.) and I will deal with him when I get back. Rockpocket 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he seems to have stopped, though I'm sure will be back. A long block will do no good, since he appears to have a non-static IP. If he returns, drop me a note and I can either issue a short block to stop the immediate problem or else consider semi-protection. Rockpocket 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are pointless unless they go over 3RR which the others IPs did, but the IPs are all from the same range so it obvious it the one editor involved as they all edit the same articles, this is the same IP range I had problems with before that where blindly reverting all my edits, a checkuser came up with a possible on one of those for regular editor on here that was involved and named in the arbcom. Semi-protection would be a solution as it would stop edit wars starting.--Padraig (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected Template:Politics of Northern Ireland 1972-98. Tyrenius (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)