User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.

Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And to you, Sir. Rockpocket 00:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Should that not be "duit a chara"??? Sarah777 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But then I always would have assumed "Sinn Féin" meant merely 'ourselves' but the meeja always says it means "ourselves alone". I dunno. Irish is tricky. Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No idea, but best wishes for the New Year to you too, Sarah. Rockpocket 03:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Krishna Kumar

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Krishna Kumar, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I should add that I added two references to the article. — Eastmain (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Do you have a reason for why you think this article should not be deleted, preferably per WP:PROF? If not, I will go ahead and list it for AfD. Rockpocket 05:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review the person's awards, position at the university, academic rank and references. Search for Krishna Kumar at http://scholar.google.com I think that these things all add up to notability per WP:GNG and [{WP:PROF]]. - Eastmain (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I already did, and couldn't really see what distinguishes him from many thousands of other academics at decent US Universities. I'll have another look to see if I missed something that would qualify him per WP:PROF, but if not, I'll probably AfD. I'll be sure to inform you about the discussion, though. Rockpocket 06:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

Would you mind casting your independant eye over this Living person's bio? He clearly thinks it is unfair to him. There is a good admin (User:ChrisO) who is watching it. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy block

I'll keep an eye out for any further trouble. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if there is there are any more problems from him/her, I'll take care if it. Rockpocket 04:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay

Rockpocket, have you seen the excellent work GoodDay is doing editing the US presidents and politicians' articles? I'm really pleased that he has taken our advice.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne. Just wanted to let you both know, I've incorporated both your advice into my 8 personal rules at User:GoodDay/My stuff. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Beatrice Mintz

On January 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beatrice Mintz, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 06:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

I'm a little annoyed, I Googled a famous song, sung at every Glasgow Celtic home game, Let the People Sing, and clicked the Wiki link. I was happy to find the lyrics there, but I noticed some idiot had made a comment along the lines of "We at Wiki would like to say, we are all Catholics and Celtic supporters". I thought that was silly, so I decided to be public-spirited and edit it out. I also discovered I could make the link to the band who wrote the song, the Wolfe Tones, clickable.

Given that this is an Irish rebel song about Music and Freedom, it's highly ironic therefore, that an editor (you), then saw fit to delete the whole article. To me it's pretty obvious that those lyrics are in the public domain, since 60,000 people sing them every Saturday. They can also be easily gotten by adding "lyrics" to the name of the song in Google. Not only that, the article had stood as it was, since 2008, until I helpfully wanted to erase some graffiti from it.

I've written to the song's author, Mr. Warfield, asking his permission to publish his lyrics (which are already published), but it's a shame that you don't have a little more common sense. Not only that, you threaten to block me, which is harsh since all I did was tidy up an existing page, which you then threw in the bin, and then I put it back up again. Maybe it's *you* who needs to pipe down.

Feel free to abuse your power though, I don't doubt you will - all I can say is "Let the People Sing". For further guidance, I suggest you *read* those lyrics - ah, the irony! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.77 (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you are not a copyright lawyer. Millions of people have read Harry Potter, but that doesn't give us the right to copy the entire text to Wikipedia, does it? Legally speaking, lyrics are no different. You have to understand that our material is published under a license that permits anything on Wikipedia to be reused for commercial purposes, this means if we publish lyrics, other people can use them to make money for themselves. Understandably, some people take exception to us (and by "us" I mean "you") ripping them off, and threaten to sue. So while you go around promoting the rights of The People to sing, some of us are tasked with keeping Wikipedia from being sued out of existance. But don't let that stop you, eh? Whatever. If you are serious about getting Mr Warfield's permission, you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission carefully. Otherwise they will continue to be deleted. Rockpocket 07:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand you have a license, and a policy. I seriously doubt the guy from the Wolfe Tones is going to sue anyone, let alone for writing down the lyrics of a song that as I mentioned, and you ignored, tens of thousands of people sing every Saturday (wth has Harry Potter got to do with it? Poor example tbh). And you also failed to address my point - the article stood, until I kindly tried to remove a graffito - and you then trashed it. Boo hiss :p

Oh and, I've written to Mr. Warfield, studiously ignoring your instructions - I'll send you a copy of the mail when I get a reply :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.77 (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Truce. I will not edit back the lyrics if you leave the articles alone. Irish rebel music deserves its articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephg2k9 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kushti! I heartily agree :) Common sense prevails. I thank you, go raibh maith agut :) I'm happy to leave the articles alone, I only removed some numpty who had defaced it, and made Wolfe Tones clickable :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.77 (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

also songs that you had delete do a bit about the authors if you can and mention the song please or leave it on i can not recount for the idiots who edit it for fun but i will preserve parts of my culture. don't take offense but if your not Irish you should not edit this topic as you don't know any thing about this topic first hand. Do some of your "fixing" aka destorying of loyalist songs as well you biased eejit. Return the songs you deleted to their rightful place like the SAM song it does not matter if you don't include the lyrics i want info about the song still. Also that wiki project will be to majority biased against Irish republicanism and pro British since the UK is a so called "legal" i will not allow the destruction of republicain or loyalist articles they should only be preserved from vandalism like yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephg2k9 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

82.13.155.77: You need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed. Simply emailing me his response is not sufficient. Josephg2k9: Please read Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums, singles and songs. If you can demonstrate, using reliable sources, that the songs meet the notability criteria (note that Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song) then feel free to write an article on it. Do not however, recreate the deleted content without establishing notability. Rockpocket 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough you should have stated this before hand along with your redirecting of songs like you did with the lyrics then i wouldn't have to give off to you like above. While the songs are notable Irish rebel songs though they most likely would not be known around the world but they are in Ireland.--Josephg2k9 (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That is fine, but Ireland has reliable sources, too. If the songs are sufficiently notable, you should be able to find sources discussing them. Rockpocket 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So what happened to your truce? You've deleted my work again. I've written to Mr. Warfield, he's confirmed as the publisher and writer of the song he releases it into the public domain, specifically for use on Wikipedia. I'll forward you his e-mail and enclose the text here:

Hi Sammy I hereby as writer and publisher of the song “Let The People Sing” and published by my company Skin music give permission to use the lyrics to the song for use on Wikipedia with kind regards Brian Warfield Skin Music 00353872573222 or Warfield@indigo.ie www.wolfetonesofficialsite.com

Nice to see you're a man of your word. Not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.77 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: I've got the guy to write to you saying it's fine to publish. What the hell more do you want? As for notability, it's sung by 50,000 Celtic fans every other Saturday - how notable does it need to be for the lyrics to be published? Let the People Sing - I despair. You have the common sense of a 5 year old. Thankfully the lyrics are available elsewhere. Dealing with you has been nothing but a big pain in the arse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.77 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't you what you are talking about. I haven't deleted any article since our previous conversation. Perhaps someone else did? If you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and forward the email to OTRS, then its possible that the lyrics can be added. However, as I noted before, we normally can't add content that is specifically released for use on Wikipedia only, as our license permits anyone else to use it too. Rockpocket 23:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It's gotta be my calone

Responded at my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just sit it out. All trolls get bored eventually and move on to more intellectually advanced pursuits (like masturbating). Rockpocket 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the weakness of most trolls. They just can't keep it up. No stamina. Irvine22 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I forget. A fellow adminstrator you may want to join forces with on this issue, is Canterbury Tail. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't knock masturbation! The last thing we want is these people breeding. --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk)

Rineen Ambush

Hi, as an admin, could you have a look at Rineen Ambush page. There is an anonymous user continually reverting sourced material for pov reasons.

Regards Jdorney (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation

As I understand it, under the Arbcom Troubles remedy, where disagreement arises among editors that they cannot resolve themselves, the issue needs to be brought to the attention of an outside opinion (in order to avoid an edit war). At History of Sinn Féin, a dispute has arisen which threatens to turn into an edit war - would you be willing to intervene?

By way of background, there is an ongoing dispute at Sinn Féin about the foundation of the party:

The party split in 1970 into two. Some editors claim, however, that the minority faction to that split (the party currently known as Sinn Féin, and previously referred to as Provisional Sinn Féin) now "owns" the continuity of the pre-split party; while other editors say that to favour one side of the split (the Provisionals) over the other (the party currently known as the Workers Party, and previously referred to as Official Sinn Féin) is (a) to go against the large majority of sources, and (b) in breach of NPOV. (Those supporting "continuity" argue that the sources favouring 1970 are not acceptable because they doubt the veracity of the primary research of some, and because some book titles and structures imply continuity.)

The History of Sinn Féin article is de facto an article about the party before the 1970 split. A dispute arose when one user attempted to insert a "Main article" tag into the article, directing to Sinn Féin. This was opposed because it supported the POV that the current party enjoys singular continuity with the pre-split party. Consensus emerged not to include this tag, although there was no consensus about inserting a different tag.

Another editor, however, then added a "See also" tag - again directing to Sinn Féin. I was content with this, so long as there would also be a "see also" tag directing to Workers Party of Ireland. My attempt to insert this tag, however, has resulted in reverts by other editors. I sought to discuss the issue, but neither reverting editor has engaged. As there is currently no conensus for the current hatnote, I have notified my intention to remove it (pending the achievement of consensus), but this was met with an apparent declaration of an intention to edit-war.

You can follow the history of the dispute from the Talk page, under the heading "Controversial edit". You'll see that users BigDunc, Domer48 and Cathar11 have reverted the "See:also WOrkers Party" tag, but that myself, Valenciano, Damac and Red King have all expressed support for a more neutral hatnote.

Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. BigDunc will probably come here to accuse me of "forum shopping" because I had previously raised this with User:Elonka. Elonka, however, declined to respond so, after several days of waiting, I've brought it here. Mooretwin (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I call it as I see it. BigDunc 07:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I'm writing a book chapter that has a fast approaching deadline. I simply don't have to time to referee another Sisyphean Irish Republican dispute at the moment. If it is still unresolved at the end of the month, I'll see what I can do then. I doubt it will be heeded, but don't we just list both parties as see also's at the bottom of the article and have no see also at the top (which isn't really used in that many other articles anyway)? Rockpocket 03:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a sensible solution. I'll attempt to implement it, but fear it will be reverted. Are you content to intervene next month, or would you prefer another admin to look at it? If the latter, can you recommend someone? Mooretwin (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems BHG took the bull by the horns. If the fires are stoked again let me know. Rockpocket 08:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, seems to be resolved for the time being. Will come back if anything else erupts. Mooretwin (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To blog or not to blog

Howdy Rock. Would you come over to my talkpage & give some inside on a proposal to engage in the discussion of monarchy/republican stuff? We need to know if such a set up would be a breach of WP:BLOG. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More of the same

I offer this link without any additional comment. --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That journo should have cast his eyes around here; he would have had a field day. I'm of the opinion their (and our) problems are probably the more "full of empty bravado" than missives from members of illegal organizations. But who knows, perhaps the non-capitalization of Martin McGuinness's job title has superseded British withdrawal as the purpose of the War (I can't help wondering, is he also deputy Chief of Staff or will he answer to Deputy Chief of Staff?) Maybe, as we speak, an ASU is being mobilized to revert, revert and revert!

I wouldn't be surprised, because the more I learn about the Irish situation what strikes me most is not the horror itself, but that the horror was (is) perpetuated with such banality, that it sometimes feels like I am an unwitting observer of an elaborate parody. I struggle to reconcile this with this, for example. Rockpocket 08:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Shakespeare had it right: A tale told by an idiot, Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. The struggle must continue until the final extirpation of our enemies! (who not only believe exactly the same, but are identical to us.) The more immediate problem is that every so often some half-wit decides to further their agenda by 'direct action' like this. You might, incidentally, be interested in the Colm Tóibín quotation found here. Best wishes, --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Another quote from the same play comes to mind also There's daggers in men's smiles. BigDunc 10:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

? Rockpocket 01:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Or... .--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant this one. Not to be confused with this. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Levineps

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You on a binge to inform everyone about this?--Levineps (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Critters

Hi Rockpocket, noted your comments elsewhere on the categorization of animal welfare versus animal cruelty. I happen to agree with your view that the term "animal welfare" is probably the better general term: What is "cruel" does vary with the eye of the beholder, but to say that something raises animal welfare concerns is a good way to initiate a discussion and get people thinking, as opposed to screaming at each other. I saw a number of the horse-related articles on my watchlist get tagged, and because of past (negative) experience, I am going to just stay out of it until the smoke clears, but if you need a "me too" or some sort of additional backup, let me know and I can add a vote or something if needed. I haven't the time or energy to take point on a big fight, but wanted to let you know my position. Montanabw^(talk) 00:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Scot or not?

Hello, Rockpocket. This is not a very encyclopedic question but, are you Scottish? I've heard you being referred to as such recently, but it's not glaringly obvious if you are. Jack forbes (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It became obvious to me that, when editing in the Troubles area, one becomes pigeonholed by one's nationality very quickly. I don't reveal my nationality publicly, firstly because I don't define myself by the accident of my birth or citizenship and therefore would prefer others don't either. Secondly because my circumstances are somewhat unusual and I've spent my life as a bit of a nomad, living in a diverse array of countries across three continents, I've spent way more time in other countries and cultures than the one where I was born. Therefore my nationality doesn't say much about me (in fact, most people are extremely puzzled by it), so why should it mean anything to anyone else?

Nonetheless, that hasn't stopped certain others from incorrectly labeling me a member of whatever national cabal they imagine is persecuting them. Its quite funny actually. Or it would be if it wasn't so sad that this type of paranoid them and us attitude, based on nothing more than ignorance, is usually what makes the issue so divisive in the first place. Still, I leave them to reinforce their prejudice with each post. The fact that they seem to have made an issue out of it recently only serves to undermine the complaint.

That said, it should be obvious from my contributions that I'm not a stranger to Scotland. I actually lived in Edinburgh while studying for my PhD. I love it there, possibly my favorite city to live in (along with San Francisco). Being a big sports fan, I developed an affinity for both Celtic and Hibernian. It was while editing a Celtic-related article that I first had the pleasure of interacting with a charming fellow called Vintagekits (talk · contribs), who was trying to stack votes in a discussion. I was asked in to investigate, realized the football disruption was only the tip of his Republican iceberg, investigated further and the rest, as they say, is history. Rockpocket 22:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I now know that your not a Scot, though I'm happy that you seem to have grown an affinity for the place whilst studying in Edinburgh. It's a beautiful city right enough, and I say that (slightly reluctantly) as a Glaswegian. I understand why you prefer not to make known your place of birth but as you say, it doesn't stop people mistakingly assuming your from here or there. I don't bother hiding my nationality or even politics from anyone, you only have to look at my user page, but realise that can bring it's own problems on wiki, such as accusations of POV pushing which I hope I don't do, but who knows, we are only human after all. Wikipedia, it's a strange but interesting place that I would recommend people occasionaly take with a pinch of salt. Jack forbes (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Its for exactly this reason that I have a policy of declaring information when editing articles where it could be that I have a conflict of interest (such as my profession - which is no secret - when editing animal welfare or animal rights issues). That fact that I have not declared my nationality in the sphere of Irish Republicanism is because it has zero bearing on the issue. I suppose, though, in a subject where national identity is the core of the problem, its difficult for participants to imagine others' nationality is not the over-riding factor informing their opinion. Rockpocket 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that I am a Scoto-Irish-African-American has no bearing whatsoever on my activities here on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Edinburgh is a nice place. Edinburghers, however.... Irvine22 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Template: English, Scottish and British monarchs

Hello Rock. IMHO, a template has been changed without consensus for that change. Would you 'revert' it to its previous status (while the discussion is on-going)? thanks. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't true. There was a discussion on the talk page for days, and no one raised any objection at all. Currently, only one editor - GoodDay - is stubbornly disrupting proceedings by continually repeating the same POV over and over again, even in the face of attempted compromises. ðarkun coll 17:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tharky, please don't accuse anybody of being stubborn. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A compromise was reached, all is well again. Thanks for the advice there. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Hi, you may be aware of a campaign by certain editors (mainly Vintagekits and BigDunc) to remove the term "Northern Irish" from the encyclopaedia, claiming that it is "not neutral". I am unaware of any consensus having been established to support this view and a recent discussion at Talk:Northern Ireland concluded that "Northern Irish" was an acceptable demonym for Northern Ireland.

According to the WP Football Clubs Manual of Style, articles about football clubs should begin by saying "Template FC is a Templatonian football club located in Template City...". Accordingly, articles about Northern Irish football clubs have always said "Template FC is a Northern Irish football club ...".

Recently, however, edits have been made to change this. No consensus has been sought or achieved for these edits. Attempts to revert the edits under WP:BRD have been met with re-reverts. The editor in question is determined to make the edits and willing to edit-war to impose the edits. Hence I come here seeking assistance. Is it possible for you to intervene in some way, or perhaps facilitate a centralised discussion?

Here are recent edits:

BigDunc at Ballymena BigDunc at Cliftonville BigDunc at Coleraine 1 BigDunc at COleraine 2 BigDunc at Dungannon 1 BigDunc at Dungannon 2 BigDunc at Crusaders 1 BigDunc at Crusaders 2 BigDunc at Crusaders 3 Vintagekits at Glenavon BigDunc at Glenavon 1 BigDunc at Glenavon 2 BigDunc at Glentoran 1 BigDunc at Glentoran 2 BigDunc at Institute 1 BigDunc at Institute 2 BigDunc at Lisburn Distillery BigDunc at Newry 1 BigDunc at Newry 2 BigDunc at Portadown 1 BigDunc at Portadown 2 BigDunc at Portadown 3 BigDunc at Linfield 1 BigDunc at Linfield 2

Here are some sources for "Northern Irish" being used as a demonym for Northern Irish football clubs:

Mooretwin (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mooretwin. Given BigDunc's recent response to an offer of genuine advice, I really don't think my attempts at mediation from me would be welcomed with good faith. I would suggest an editor completely unknown to the the editors involved be asked to mediate at a centralized location, to increase the chances of success. A member of the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal might help. For what its worth, I think the suggestion the the denonym is inherently "not neutral" to be lacking foundation. That said, I really don't see the problem with describing someone as "from Northern Ireland" instead, especially if "Northern Irish" could be offensive to the specific individual involved. When applied to institutions, however, I really don't see any distinction (since there is no individual involved). Therefore I think its best to consider the best description on a case by case basis. Rockpocket 03:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Genuine advice??? Perhaps you two should pair up on an RfC, wouldn't that send a message? Could you explain how that comment was genuine advice please. BigDunc 09:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My point was that no one could accuse Domer and Irvine to have a shared agenda. Therefore two people who would otherwise have little in common, both affirming the same perceived issue with Elonka, would likely send a stronger message than either of them would alone. Could you explain why that comment was deleted with a dismissive (and factually incorrect) edit summary, please? Rockpocket 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no outstanding issue with Elonka, after her handling of that Dick Stauner situation. It was hard, but she took a firm grip and manipulated it to a climax I found rather satisfactory.Irvine22 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't take it that way, I thought you were talking about me and Domer and it was a dig saying team up and have it laughed out, and the Scotish part wasn't directed at you but Irvine, I don't take anything he does with good faith and it was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Thanks for the clarification think we both maybe need to assume good faith. This place is getting to me seeing conspiracy every where. BigDunc 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am devastated that you don't reciprocate the abundant good faith I bring to all my dealings on Wikipedia. Devastated. Irvine22 (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I can see the crossed lines now. No hard feelings. Rockpocket 01:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've sought mediation here and moved my post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs. Mooretwin (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Major urinary proteins

On February 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Major urinary proteins, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

List of futurologists

You may be interested in this proposal. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

AE continued

I have brought this to your talk page as the substantive issue is getting lost in the noise feel free to move it to AE if you wish but could you explain to me what is an uninvolved admin? IMO the whole uninvolved admin is a bit of a crock, as the subject is to wide for someone with no knowlege of the players and the arena. I have also said numerous times that AE is the wrong place for this a blocks are wide and varying depending on who comes along, which is why I raised the breach with Elonka, who being too busy ignored it. Also I didn't question the admin on the block, and if you have a diff were I said that Domer didn't breach the probation I would like to see it as I don't recall saying anything of the sort, but what I did do was to question them on their behaviour surrounding the block, and of the probation, which as I have said neither MT or Domer should be on. BigDunc 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ostensibly an uninvolved admin is one who has not been involved in the dispute or issue under discussion (be it an article or editor). More generally, its considered an admin who doesn't have a conflict of interest in conflict or have strong personal feelings about it. Admins with past experience, even significant experience, dealing with the editors or issues in question are not deemed involved so long as they are not party to the dispute. More specifically, the Arbs made a statement somewhere about the Troubles case on this exact issue, stating the admins who had tried to deal with it were not involved. In fact because the case has been so lengthy and protracted, they Arbs stated that admins experienced in that subject were asked to provide that perspective.

A few years ago I voluntarily decided to stop putting sanctions on other editors in this field because I was sick and tired of the abuse that followed. I have stuck to that, though it doesn't seem to have stopped the abuse. However, since pretty much all the other admins who were present from the beginning has moved on for the sake of their sanity, I have continued to offer opinion and perspective to those admins that do take action. However, I'm careful to only do that - as an admin - in disputes where I am uninvolved (such as this one) and over articles I have not edited (such as this one). On any article or dispute I have been involved with, I comment just as another editor.

As you rightly state, the record of people should be taken into account and sometimes I will point out to an admin that this is not an isolated case. But more often than not my administrative contributions have been defending editors (on both sides), when I feel admins are being necessarily harsh. On a few occasions I have managed to negotiate unblocks:

15:01, 21 June 2008 Rockpocket (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Domer48 (talk | contribs)" ‎ (on pledge to be more civil, with understanding of blocking admin.)
14:02, 8 September 2009 Rockpocket (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "MickMacNee (talk | contribs)" ‎ (per discussion with blocking admin and user on his page)

Given this fact - fact, not opinion - you may understand how galling it is to have certain editors perpetuate nationalist bollocks such as this.

Regarding your actions, I see the distinction. But you must also be able to see what this looks like from an outside perspective. Mooretwin is editing away happily. He clearly doesn't mean to revert twice (as demonstrated by his response when you point it out, if he really had thought it was a revert, he would have self reverted as he did previously). So if he did break 1RR (and I agree with Elonka that it's open to interpretation), then it was clearly unintentional and the edit only served to make the article better referenced. In the meantime you, Domer and O Fenian have a little conversation about it and, from the tenor your comments, appear aggrieved over Domer's previous block. So you take it to Elonka as a test case, she doesn't bite. So O Fenian takes it one step further and now an editor is blocked for 3 months for a pathetically trivial transgression.

Bottom line is this: without you, then O Fenian deciding to make an issue out of this, it would never have happened. If your aim really was to highlight an unfair probation on Mooretwin and Domer, you failed spectacularly. If your aim was to make sure Mooretwin gets punished, just because you can, you did a sterling job. Either way, you and O Fenian collectively threw another editor under the bus to prove a point and, whether it is true or not, gave a damn good impression of a tag-team working together. So what happens now? Well I expect next time you, Domer or O Fenian accidentally step over a line some one will be watching and will be only too happy to report it... and the cycle continues. And God help you if Sandstein decides to answer the call. Rockpocket 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may butt in here, "God help you" is certainly appropriate. With your – BigDunc's – block log, I cannot see how any other block duration but indefinite would be appropriate in the event of any Troubles-related disruption reported to AE. Sandstein 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket, is there some prior history between you and Sandstein? Your comments at AE are coming off a bit, um, strong? --El on ka 18:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

None whatseover, Elonka. If we have ever interacted before, I don't recall. If I sound irritated its because I'm amazed at how unwilling he or she is to accommodate the reasonable opinions of others. Getting in early with a unusually extreme sanction, then doing everything to ensure your opinion supersedes that of the consensus is not behavior I would expect. Admins are supposed to serve the community, not dictate to them. Quite honestly, If Sandstein insists that we get ArbCom involved, I'll be asking them to consider his or her suitability as an AE enforcer. That said, I'll disengage from there for now, as I don't wish to unduly inflame things. Rockpocket 18:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think our disagreement is about the role of consensus in AE. While the project as a whole is based on consensus, arbitration is a method of binding dispute resolution that is not subject to the consensus mechanism. For arbitration (and arbitration enforcement) to be effective, it must be authoritative; that is, not subject to easy community second-guessing in every instance. For this reason, the ArbCom has held that admins have wide discretion in enforcing arbitration decisions, subject to review by the Committee itself. Also for this reason, it has held that overturning an enforcement action requires clear, substantial and active community consensus in favor of overturning the sanction. Such consensus might conceivably be had at, say, an RfC with about 100 participants, but not in an AE discussion of six. That is, at the least, not active consensus. By arguing otherwise, you are weakening the effectiveness of arbitration enforcement and, consequently, empowering disruptive editors (even though I am sure that this is not your goal). Sandstein 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, I'm not arguing that the sanction be overturned. I accept that a reasonable admin could consider Mooretwin's edits to be in violation of the probation (though also reasonable to consider that they were not). In that case, it is reasonable that said admin issue a sanction. What that sanction is falls squarely in the realm of judgment. Its fine that you used your judgment, but its pretty clear that judgment is not in line with pretty much every other admin that commented. I would expect an admin to consider the counsel of those other admins (and other uninvolved editors in good standing) who commented and adjust their judgment accordingly. That is not "overturning" a sanction, it is simply modifying it slightly. Neither is it an act of weakness. Quite the opposite, it shows that the admin community can function effectively as a collective. Its shows that admins are not autocrats, that we have corrective mechanisms in place and that we value common sense over bureaucracy in advancing the encyclopaedia. All of these things strengthen the arbitration enforcement process.

Let me ask you this: do you honestly believe, given all the circumstances and discussion on this request, that ArbCom would uphold your original sanction? I would be utterly amazed if they did and I think you are experienced enough to recognize that too. Given this, and knowing that ArbCom would probably be where this goes next, are are willing to force us to spend time going down every route only to reach the inevitable conclusion we both can recognize, all to uphold a process? Rockpocket 21:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly a reasonable opinion. Of course, if we had a long admin discussion over each case of arbitration enforcement, and would adjust the decision according to the outcome of the discussion, the result would probably be better - more appropriate to the situation - on average. That's why we have the consensus model in the first place. But for the reasons I've explained at more length to Elonka on my talk page, at the end of the day, I don't think that would be a good idea. Making AE actions subject to lengthy discussions would consume much volunteer time, introduce additional gaming opportunities and reduce the deterrent effect of AE. I prefer enforcement that is sometimes uneven or too harsh or lenient, but fast and effective, to enforcement that is scrupulously fair and balanced, but slow and tedious. What's more, I believe that ArbCom does too. That's why I almost always defer to the opinion of the (first) enforcing admin, even if I myself would have made a totally different decision.

I have frankly no idea whether ArbCom would uphold my sanction. I'm a lawyer by profession, and I know that courts are more difficult to predict than the weather. It depends, I suppose, on their standard of review: whether they too believe that admins should exercise wide discretion (that's what they often say, anyway) and defer to that, or whether they want to review the case de novo and do what they themselves think is appropriate. But it is their prerogative to do so. That of other admins, not so much. Sandstein 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I think I appreciate your position better now. Previously I found myself forming the conclusion that you has made your decision and you were damn well sticking to it due to stubbornness, I can see now its based on your understanding of AE (and you obviously have a more significant hands-on experience of that than I). I can see your point, and from an institutional perspective it makes a lot of sense. From the perspective of the editor who may have suffered one of the harsh sanctions, it is less appealing.

As an aside its interesting to me that you note you are a lawyer by profession. It always seems to me that lawyers develop an ability to consider matters of justice or judgment dispassionately (or, they would probably say, professionally) while the rest of us get emotionally wrapped up in the individuals that - in our opinion at least - fall through the cracks. (I don't mean that as a criticism: I'm a research scientist and people often struggle to understand how I can kill animals so dispassionately at work, then come home and play with my pets. I guess its more or less the same thing).

Anyway, I'm not sure where this leaves us. Irrespective of me badgering you further, I'm pretty sure Mooretwin feels sufficiently hard done by that he will appeal to ArbCom should Elonka's proposed consensus based proposal not go ahead. I guess its up to you two to decide. For my own part I think I have said enough, so I'll leave you two to it with no hard feelings. Rockpocket 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. You're probably right with respect to what we on the Continent call déformation professionelle (does it mean anything that my favorite Futurama character is Hermes Conrad?) I probably should have made clearer, to begin with, what my objections to your objections were about. But I'll leave it up to Elonka to decide what (if anything) to do now. Sandstein 22:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What I would like is if you (Sandstein) voluntarily modified the block. Because I agree with you that it's important that admins support admins, and I am very reluctant to change the block settings, if you say you are adamantly opposed to it. --El on ka 22:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply on my talk page so as not to bother Rockpocket any longer. Sandstein 23:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Rock I will look forward to your spirited support the next block I get, don't recall you coming to my defense on my blocks especially the last one when I was blocked for 2 weeks for calling an admin who lied about me a fucking fantasist, but we will just have to see if it is one sided or not. For what it is worth I think 3 months is extremely harsh but how can I chip in to try and say something about it when the editor keeps blaming me and others, you don't shoot the messenger. BigDunc 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that some editors are gracious when you try to help them and remember it, while others either dismiss the offer with abuse or forget it at their earliest convenience. [1][2][3] Rockpocket 19:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies I have never seen any of those responses. I had just took a wikibreak and stayed away from wikipedia. BigDunc 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you were not around then there is no way you could know. My wider point is simply that is very frustrating to be continually told (or have it implied) that you are biased or have an agenda against certain editors, when the facts simply don't support it. Ultimately it takes its toll. Last time I tried to help Domer, for example, he rudely dismissed me. I wouldn't be human if, next time he was blocked, I decided not to get involved. Of course, if I did decline to comment, it would then be cited as evidence that I'm biased. Because - apparently - its my job to help even those people that don't want my help.

I really hope, in future, editors will consider the bigger picture before dishing out the accusations. It will not happen of course, I guarantee you the next time I offer an opinion counter to the interests of a Republican editor, the same tired old nonsense will be paraded out. On that occasion, I'll look forward to your spirited support ;) Rockpocket 20:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya just can't win! Sarah777 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Big Dunc

Rockpocket, I really hope you can persuade Dunc to return to the project. I notice he hasn't responded on his talk page. What is going on here, with so many veteran editors retiring?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they have gone back to their day jobs, having reached the inescapable conclusion that writing encyclopedias is best left to professionals? Irvine22 (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your trolling comments are not helping matters, Irvine. I would suggest that you at least make an attempt to constructively edit this encyclopedia, which alas for you is manifestedly a Herculean task.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you say "this encyclopedia" what do you mean? Irvine22 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your request

Hey, there, Rockpocket! It's hardly my fault if some people find verified facts - such as the uncontestable English background of Sean Mac Stiofain - to be provocative. Irvine22 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Lede?

V._Krishnaswamy_Iyer - I have other problems with this (just notable) article, e.g. the phenomenal number of other articles which link to it. Is it really a "Chennai topic"? It is verging on an autobiographical hagiography. Please would you have a look. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The gentleman seems notable enough, though a few more sources and a full rewrite wouldn't hurt. I've tweaked the lead to better fit with our MOS. The number links to the article is due to its inclusion in Template:Chennai Topics. I don't really know whether he is sufficiently notable to be listed there. I'm guessing probably not, but you would be better off canvassing some opinion from Wikipedia:WikiProject India than take my word for it. Alternatively, explain your reasoning on the template talk page, remove it and wait for someone to protest. Rockpocket 20:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Very helpful guidance. I have followed up on it. Template:Chennai Topics seems altogether too extensive. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Rockpocket, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Rockpocket/Awards. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave Snowden

Hiya, Rockpocket!

I'm slightly confused by your interaction with Snowded here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snowded#Inquiry

Specifically, I don't understand why you seem to be offering to follow one of three very different, not to say contradictory, courses of action (clean up the article, AFD it, or leave it alone) based on whatever preference Snowded expresses? Is it usual to edit articles to order, based upon the preferences of the subject? Irvine22 (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Our policies demand we are extremely careful with biographies of living people; when those individuals are relatively unknown, then its even more of a sensitive issue. Sadly, we have seen a number of cases where a Wikipedians of borderline notability have had an article about them created by trolls and vandals, as a way of attacking or provoking the Wikipedian. It was unclear to me whether this article was another example of this. If so, and if the borderline notable subject objected to it, then there may be appropriate for an AfD. If that was not the case, and the subject is sufficiently notable, then it should be improved by someone who appreciates the sensitivities of relatively unknown BLPs. Finally, if the subject objected to me overhauling it (in that they may be afraid it was being done as a way of attacking them personally) then I'm happy to leave it alone, as that is clearly not my intention.

In short, we should never forget they each biography is about a real person. You would be surprised at the emails I have received from people, some whose names you would recognize, who have told me of the real anguish that some idiot had caused by messing with their Wikipedia article. When those people are relatively unknown, the impact on their lives can be even more profound. We have a responsibility to be sensitive to private individuals, and my inquiry was an attempt to do just that. I would strongly recommend you take that responsibility seriously because WP:BLP is not an area where your particular brand of humor will be tolerated. Rockpocket 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt Britannica has these kind of problems. Irvine22 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I expect that is because Britannica hires professionals, whereas we have anyone with internet access. Rockpocket 00:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. You have previously indicated a willingness to help me become a better Wikipedia editor. I'd be interested in collaborating with you on improving the Dave Snowden article, if the offer still stands? Irvine22 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Showing good judgment and sensitivity to others would be a good place to start being a better Wikipedian. Given the subject's antipathy to your recent editing, do you think it shows good judgment and sensitivity to choose that article out of 3+ million others? If you choose to edit it in a responsible manner (that means sourcing everything and knowing the BLP policies on due weight, privacy and verifiability) no one is going to stop you, but any hint of an attempt to provoke anyone (and that includes issues of nationality or ethnicity) on that article and it will not be looked on favorably. BLP offers zero tolerance, so think carefully what you want to achieve here. I'll be working on it over the coming days. Rockpocket 02:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we seem both to have independently chosen that article out of 3 million others. What are the chances? I think the article is unclear on basic points about the subject - like what his field actually is and what he does within it - and very poorly sourced at present. I'm also just not clear about the basis for notability. I mean, if the subject were an academic would he pass WP:PROF? Irvine22 (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree, which is why I offered to work on it. Until I have done some research I can't really comment with any authority, but at first glance it appears he may pass WP:PROF on the basis that he is editor-in-chief of a significant academic journal. Rockpocket 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that might be so. Snowden's field seems to be management theory, so I might have expected to have heard of him. Still, all his publications seem to be dated long after I finished my MBA. Since when I have been largely engaged in the practice of management in complex organizations. Irvine22 (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User page mysteriously deleted

Rockpocket, something bizarre has happened. My daughter who is an editor here with the user name User:Tatiana kitty has had her user page mysteriously deleted within the last hour or so. She made an edit to it about a little over and hour ago, and since that time it was deleted but I cannot locate it in the deletions log. What has happened, Rock? She's practically hysterical after uploading images, userboxes, etc. And now it's gone without a trace. Can you please help. Thanks. Her talk page is still intact--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Did she create it on Commons rather than here? RashersTierney (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

She created one on Commons as well as one here. She had just edited it earlier on today. I had seen it myself as I was helping her link something. The weird thing is it's not listed in the deletions log.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd. Her TP is still there. RashersTierney (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have since had her change her password as I believe some troll may have figured out her old password, logged-in as her and deleted her page as a prank. Will an admin be able to restore her user page?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I expect so but all that Admin stuff is a bit of a mystery to me at the best of times. Seems they're able to do whatever they want really ;-) RashersTierney (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I can see the deleted page history, but I can't why it was deleted or who deleted it. I can restore, but give me a little time to get to the bottom of this. Rockpocket 16:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rock. It's very possible that she's a victim of phishing. I have since told her to change her password as the old one was too easy to figure out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its phishing. It looks like the entire history has been deleted and suppressed from view, presumably by someone with oversight tools. I don't want to restore it without first determining why it was deleted. I'm trying to find out. My best guess is that there was some personal information on there, and it was removed to protect her privacy. I'll let you know when I find out more. Rockpocket 18:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have confirmed what happened. The deleted page had a significant amount of personal identifying information self-disclosed by a minor, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. So it was over-sighted. This process was put in place both to protect Wikipedia and, obviously, to protect minors from identity theft and predation. We do not stop minors from editing, but they may not post any personal information that could be used to identify themselves. Therefore I very much doubt that it will be restored, and if she continues to post personal identifying information she risks having the account blocked. If you want more details you should contact the oversighter, Dominic (talk · contribs). Rockpocket 19:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rock. I have just contacted him on his talk page. I appreciate your work and help in this matter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a way to prevent pedophiles from contacting minors for luring purposes. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's a sad reality in the world we currently live in. I've explained to Tatiana the reason it was suppressed, and she understands. Thanks again, Rock for your help. When my daughter returns home from school, I shall assist her in creating a new user page, but having her list just her interests, hobbies, and a few userboxes. No personal data whatsoever, such as DOB, place of birth, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Jeanne. I'm sorry your daughter is unable to represent herself on WP as she might wish. Its sad that we need to take such precautions, but the news out of Italy today only reinforces the legal and ethical minefield that the internet has become for content providers. Rockpocket 18:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

New category

Rockpocket, I am trying to create a new category Category:Prisoners in the Tower of London but I can't seem to get it right. How does one create a new category? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne. Sorry about the delay in my response. I was in Las Vegas for a few days and there are much more enticing things to do in Vegas than edit Wikipedia!

To answer your question. Creating a category is pretty easy. All you need to do is:

Go to the page you would like to create (e.g. Category:Prisoners of Foo)
Write something at the top which explains what the category is (e.g. "This category lists all people who are, or have been, imprisoned in Foo"). You can link to the main article.
Then underneath add any parent category that you would like your category to be a sub-cat of (e.g. write: [[Category:Prisoners and detainees]]). Note you can have as many parent categories as you see fit.
Then save the page, and now you can add [[Category:Prisoners of Foo]] to the bottom of any article. The link should be blue and that should make the article appear in the category next time you visit it.

I hope that helps, let me know if you are still having problems. Rockpocket 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine22

Hi Rockpocket, are you able to do something about the troll User:Irvine22 please? Aside from his history of disruption on the Troubles and elsewhere, and his recent vendetta against Dave Snowden (note the edit summary) he has been posing his nationalist opinions to my Talk page (here), and continued even after I asked him not to post to my page see here. Further, he has now started to troll other pages see this, this and this. If you would rather not be involved, please let me know - but some advice would be welcome at least. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not posting "my nationalist opinions". I am posting facts about the state of the law as regards U.K. citizenship and those who hold it - including English, Scottish and Welsh people. As a U.S. citizen I have no dog in this hunt. You may have "nationalist opinions" that make these facts unpalatable, but they remain facts nontheless - and we are in the fact business. surely? In any event, I would be very surprised if Rockpocket were to take sides in a content dispute.Irvine22 (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Check user

Hi, I'm suspicious about this recently-created account - User:Iamstiff, which appears effectively to be a single-issue account, i.e. going through all the Irish football articles to remove reference to "Northern Irish" (although he has also made some edits about New York). Can you advise whether I should and how I can get a check-user done? Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Iamstiff may be the latest member of the Stauner family to pop up on Wikipedia, after User:Dick Stauner, User:Randy Stauner and User:Roddy Stauner. Irvine22 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oldcastle, County Meath

Rock, could you cast your beady over this article? - ongoing tag-vandalism that might merit some protection from anon users. Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it - you might check out The Script. Is there a template/code for "this article is humongously out of date and needs to be updated (or I'll delete the damn thing)"?

*takes Rock's pulse*...wakey wakey! Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sarah, sorry about the radio silence. It looks like things have settled down on that article now (over a month later).

The reason for my absence is that I have been very busy moving back to the UK. I'm back online now (and in a new time zone!) so I should be more responsive. However, the sad news is that in the near future Rockpocket may be no more. Part of my new job involves a project that would interact with Wikipedia on a larger scale. As one of the managers of it, and for reasons of transparancy, I may need to come out of the closet and contribute under my real identity. Rockpocket 13:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this now, came here to see why I hadn't seen you at the Science desk in a while. This is sad news to sentimental little me, but I hope you are happy with your new job, and wish you all the best! ---Sluzzelin talk 13:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Same here. We'll miss you around the joint, Rock.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

He won't be gone, Jeanne, he'll just be here under his real name. That's the way I read it anyway. What's the odds his real name is Rock? Hi, Rockpocket. I was going to ask you to have a look at the Rangers F.C. article where it appears a couple of editors are trying to remove all criticism from the sectarianism section, but you sound as though you're quite busy at the moment, so I won't. :) Jack forbes (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)