User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19

Did you know

Updated DYK query On 17 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meal Monday , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

link to Lucky Dube


I was wondering, what wrong with a link to my Lucky Dube page @ ?


Julian —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. We generally try to avoid links to picture galleries per WP:EL, since a featured article should have suitable pictures already. There is also the problem with copyright, as many picture galleries simply use copyright images from other pages (I note that may not be the case with your site, though). The other thing to consider is, if you have an account called (talk · contribs), adding links to is probably going to be considered a conflict of interest and risks being deleted as WP:SPAM. Rockpocket 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Elementary, my dear Watson

Thank you for your informed answer and trying to balance out that discussion a bit. Have yourself a tiny little star ...


---Sluzzelin talk 20:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, how kind! Rockpocket 01:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It was a toss-up between * and *. I went for the bulky one, despite the clutter. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ack, just read your message. :-( Hope you and loved ones (and loved property) are safe. Best wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure my deteriorating eyesight would have "got" the smaller one. You made the right choice ;)
As for the fires, my house is safe for the moment but we have just been told to evacuate from my place of work. I think that is more to do with rapidly deteriorating air-quality than imminent threat of fire, as I can't see any flames. However, its looking very much like we are going to be cut off to the north. So if things do get much worse, we are going to have to hope Mexico is more welcoming to our cross-border refugees then we are to theirs. Either that or I start swimming for Hawai'i! Rockpocket 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Help please

Hello, we are Lirdoco. Do you remember us??

We are modifying an article about something of Mexico for this partial and We would like you to check it to give us your opinion. The article is about Pemexgate and there is a lot of information missing. Please check our discussion page to look for detailed information. We will thank you a lot for your help. Please, remember to answer us in our discussion page because we need to have the conversation there. Again, Thank you. :----- Lirdoco —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref desk sidebar colour reply

I replied to your remark on my talk page. Given the importance of speed here, I thought I'd better point this out. You can delete this after you've read it. (will not self-destruct :) ) DirkvdM 08:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

New cats

Possible minor problem with the plan, see here. One Night In Hackney303 21:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New query on the talk page. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 01:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

re: barnstar

LOL I love it! Thanks --ffroth 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For giving me an exceptionally appropriate barnstar. ffroth 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


I see you are on tonight. I hope that is good news in respect of the wildfires. While I know you to be a dedicated Wikiedian, I can't see anybody hunkered over a laptop keyboard, wearing a Red-Cross blanket, sitting on a WW1 reclaimed cot, and drinking ersatz coffee out of a chipped mug. May you and yours be safe! Bielle 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, Bielle. I'm relieved to report the mandatory evacuations didn't quite reach my home, though we were evacuated from my place of work for three days (though that was slightly less traumatic, funnily enough).
Call me a cynic, but I would not be at all surprised if some kind soul had donated a wireless point to the relief effort, and everyone was there in their cots, whittling away the hours day-trading online. The most notable aspect of last week that there was precious little Katrina-style desperation around. The evacuations and refugee camps were all very civilized, presumably because the many displaced people were the nouveau riche of Rancho Santa Fe, rather than the inner city dwellers of New Orleans. I guess the sting of losing your $2 million house in a fire is somewhat tempered by the knowledge you have a $3 million insurance policy in place to rebuild it again... this time with a cinema as well as a pool, library and stables. Rockpocket 05:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume that the gymnasium, snooker table and tanning room were a part of the original design, then, were they? I did see a family of 5 on Larry King Live who were renters and with no insurance, so there are those in similar financial circumstances, but they don't appear to have been abandoned by all governments and all fellow citizens in the manner that seemed to describe New Orleans at the time of the disaster. I am delighted you and yours are well. Bielle 06:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, its wrong of me to be so facetious. There are many regular people who lost everything they had, and were not insured. I think the major difference between this and Katrina is that they had a practice run back during the Cedar Fire (after which the authorities took a lot of criticism.) The reverse 911 system they put in place seemed to work brilliantly this time around.
The one thing that struck me about this is how thin the facade of society we all live under in the first world. On Sunday morning I was having breakfast with my wife in a beach-side cafe over looking the pacific, exchanging pleasantries with those around us and thinking what a perfectly pleasant place this is to live. 24 hours later ash was falling from the sky and we could hardly breathe through the thick smoke. If the weather had continued in the manner it did in the first day, there would not be anything of San Diego to speak of today, one week later. It sounds inconceivable, but it could easily have happened. Instead of using my wireless laptop to type this, I would be running around the burnt out remains of downtown, using it to brain some La Jollan socialite so I could eat her pet chihuahua for dinner. I'm thinking those wacky survivalists may not be so crazy after all. Rockpocket 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't chastizing you; I didn't think you were being either facetious or dismissive of the real problems of some. You are right about the "thin skin" of privilege and civility on which we depend for our view of the world. While it is possible that the survivalists are right, they are not attractive. If theirs is the world we will get, I just won't be coming out to play in it. Bielle 16:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


I assume you are still keeping my talk page under watch, Rockpocket? I certainly hope so. Clio the Muse 22:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Depending on what you're worried about, your talk page is always under watch. For example, mine was vandalized twice tonight, and the damage was instantly reverted by two different editors I've never heard of -- members, I presume, of our normal, nimble-fingered vandal patrol.
Me, I don't worry about vandalism to my user pages any more. It always gets cleaned up; I rarely have to lift a finger.
(But if you're worried about something other than obvious vandalism, that's another story, of course.)
There's a beautiful passage in Bill Bryson's book Neither Here nor There which applies here:
[Copenhagen] is so safe that Queen Margrethe used to walk from Amalienborg Palace to the shops every morning to buy flowers and vegetables just like a normal citizen. I once asked a Dane who guarded her in such circumstances, and he looked at me in surprise and replied, "Why, we all do."
Steve Summit (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This particular instance was a slightly more complex issue than simple vandalism and required admin assistance (hence the request), but thats a great quote, Steve. Rockpocket 05:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


I don't know if you're aware how Category:People who died on the 1981 Irish hunger strike this fits into the category tree now, after this edit? One Night In Hackney303 08:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My thinking was that there are a number of common categories covering all people in the category "People who died on the 1981 Irish hunger strike" and so it would be better to put it there, instead of in all 10 entries. But I am open to persuasion. PatGallacher 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC) (moved from my user page Rockpocket 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
I see two issues here.
  • Firstly is "People who died on the 1981 Irish hunger strike" a true sub-category of "Irish Republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism"? In other words were all the people who died sentenced in the UK after '74 under terror legislation?
  • Secondly, if that is true, is it suitable to place the individuals in the hunger strike subcat only? I'm thinking about WP:SUBCAT: "When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well." It doesn't immediately follow, in my mind, that individuals who died on hunger strike were also imprisoned on terror charges per se. I feel that the information portrayed is sufficiently different that both should be added.
Similarly, this is why I have added both "Irish Republicans interned without trial" and "Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict" to some individuals despite the former being a subcat of the latter. I feel the informative difference between internment and imprisonment (after trial) is sufficiently different to justify both. Of course, alternative opinions are welcome. Rockpocket 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
First, yes. Everyone was sentenced under terror legislation. IRA and INLA members weren't sentenced under any other sort of legislation, post-1974.
Second, no real opinion either way. I can see the merits of both, so I'm not sure what the best way to go is. One Night In Hackney303 00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday's Admin recall

You knew I would laugh, didn't you? I thanked Ten for lightening up the silliness, and now I thank you for a further amusing illumination. I wonder how many others will see the jokes? - Bielle 02:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was being deadly serious. And as such, I think that TenOfAllTrades is much too uncivil to remain an admin. Recall, anyone? Rockpocket 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Avast! Far too rouge be I to surrender to a recall! Jimbo himself will have to defeat me in single combat and pry me admin bit from my cold, dead hands! Arrrr! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Christmas Cookies Plateful.JPG
PS:I brought cookies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Uploading an article

Hi!!. I`m Nathaly from Copitas team. For our last period of class we have to uptoad a complete article to wikipedia. Can u check my part, and tell me if it´s ok please??


Tenango del Valle

Location Tenango del Valle is located 16 miles south downtown Toluca, capital city of Estado de México. Teotenango´s geographical coordinates are 99° 31’ 37’’ minimum length and 99° 45’ maximum length; 18° 39’ 7’’ and 19° 8’ 29’ from minimum to maximum north latitude. Teotenango has an average of 2 600 meters above the level of the sea.

Teotenango  is surrounded by:

• North: The counties of Calimaya, Santa María Rayón and Texcalyacac • South: The counties of Tenancingo and Villa Guerrero. • East: The country of Joquicingo. • West: The country of Toluca.

Climate The climate is moderate sub- moist. The rains in Tenango are especially in summer and from October to January there are a lot of chills and in February and March there are strong winds. The annual temperature is 13.5° C, with a maximum of 29.5° C and with a minimum of 5° C. Demographic information Topography

Tenango del Valle topography is characterized for his altitudes that are extended to the wide and long of his territory. One of the most important altitudes is Tetépetl hill, in where is an archeological site, Azul hill and in Zictepec hillside. Also there are a hill named Tepehuisco in “Pueblo Nuevo” (old town) and “El Zacatonal” and “El Cuexcontepec” hills in “Tlanixco”. 

Hidrografía Tenango del Valle has so many brooks, for example: “Arroyo Grande”, “La Cieneguita”, “El Zaguán”, “Dos Caminos”, “La Ciénega”, “Almoloya” and “Las Cruces”.

History In Matalcingo valley have been habited human groups since a long time. This valley was the scenery of Teotihuacan expansion. In the year 800 A.C. began the development different civilizations. One example of this is “Los matlatzincas” that habited the upper lands in Estado de Mexico.

Nathaly07 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that it?

Now that the ArbCom is out of the way (and I find it difficult to see what has been achieved), I'd like to signal my appreciation. You've come in for a lot of abuse, but I think that you have gone out of your way to be fair and I, at least, very much appreciate the work that you have done. (And, as a minor point, you come across as both an interesting and nice person in your posts!)

Victoria Cross Medal Ribbon & Bar.png A modest token of appreciation
I, Major Bonkers, award this minor token of my esteem for your excellent work as an Admin.

If it was up to me, you'd have a real one, but there you go. Not everyone thinks you're a @*%!!!--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And bar. - Kittybrewster 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind gesture, I genuinely appreciate it.
It would appear that is it. I'm withholding judgment on what has been achieved for a while. Time will tell. I must say, while I don't always agree with your positions on a lot of issues, I do find interacting with you gentlemen a civil and altogether pleasant experience. If only that was always the case. As always, if I can ever be of assistance please let me know. Rockpocket 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope you took my Inspector Javert analogy to heart, even if the Jean Valjean in this case was not as innocent by any means. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your analogy, though I don't consider it particularly relevant. Irrespective of what some would have you believe, my interest in our Jean Valjean is entirely academic. Its not a case of his guilt or innocence, simply one of whether his continued presence here will continue to disrupt the project. My extensive experience of his behaviour was set out in full in my evidence to justify my belief we would be better off without him. I would have been lambasted if I had offered that opinion without any justification, yet in providing my reasoning it all I got in return was so-called "uninvolved" editors taking the opportunity to admin-bash.
I would simply note that I have never been blocked or warned, never edit-warred, never operated a sock or meat puppet, and never personally attacked anyone, yet you are compelled to counsel me for drawing ArbCom's attention towards someone who has done all those things and more. Sorry, but somehow I don't think I'll be taking it to heart. Rockpocket 07:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean it in the way that you were somehow malicious in all of this, I perhaps just think you focused all of your energy on Vintagekits and ignored the contributions of his "opponents" to the continued cycle of edit warring. It does take two to tango, even though Vintagekits unarguably displayed the worst of this behaviour, it does not give the other side a free pass. And they will now probably move on to something else, and as I gather from User:Counter-revolutionary's talk page, it is atheism, a despicable practice that no gentlemen who so dearly loves his Queen and Country would ever take a part of, thank you very much. *wink* We're better off without ALL of them. DEVS EX MACINA pray 12:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, Deus. I am an atheist. But, then, I do not claim to be a gentleman, nor indeed to practice my atheism. - Kittybrewster 13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You should probably take your "feather in the cap" back from David then. DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That may very well be the case, but I have consistently pointed out that my experience with his "opponents" is extremely limited. That is not due to "ignoring" them, but because I have never had any reason to interact with them. Consider my involvement in this and tell what exactly am I was supposed to do? The reason my attention was focused on Vk was simply because someone completely uninvolved came to me with evidence that VK was involved in vote stacking with sock and meat puppets. No-one provided evidence that any of his opponents were doing so and, even though I checked, I could find no evidence of anyone else doing that. So, I supervised his parole, during which he edited drunk, used terrorist rhetoric and issued death threats. Again, no-one else did that as far as I am aware and his opponents were not even involved in that incident. Subsequent to that (on his second parole) VK was the one who revealed personal information about other editors. Again, no-one else did that as far as I am aware and it appeared to be entirely unprovoked. These are the three major issues I have with Vk and those are the three major incidents I discussed at ArbCom. So again, what exactly am I supposed to say about his "opponents" with regards to these three issues considering they were barely involved?
The issue here is that those people who persistently abuse our policies always respond with the same cry to attempt to deflect attention from their own poor behaviour: "Well, X's behaviour is the same as mine and you are not saying anything about that, therefore you are biased". This is exactly what Vk said and, quelle surprise Giano tries that same tack the other day [1] I have absolutely zero time for anyone that tries that, its pathetic. It is also a straw man argument. The lack of awareness of someone else's poor behaviour, on a completely different occasion, is not the same as ignoring it. Admins are volunteers; it is entirely unfair to expect them to be involved in every aspect of everyone's involvement in such as complex issue as this. If anyone could provide an occasion where they drew my attention to the poor behaviour of an "opponent" and I ignored it while taking action against them, then they may have a point. But, that doesn't happen, of course. Instead they would rather wait, then use it retroactively to bleat about bias. So, I completely refute any suggestion that I "ignored the contributions" of anyone in this case. Rockpocket 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I just trust you walk away from this with a few lessons - I certainly did, and so did probably most - about bias, POV and canvassing in articles. DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have learned plenty from this experience. Principally that there is a certain type of person who does not respect rules. And only adhere to them when they have they have exhausted their lies, their attempts to cheat the system and are left with no other options. Personally, I think it is a terrible waste of good faith editors' time to indulge this to the extent we do. The question we all should be asking is, have those people whose behaviour was the subject of the ArbCom learned any lessons? Rockpocket 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather thought, when I originally posted my Barnstar here, that it might attract some minority criticism. I also hoped (and rather expected) others to agree with me that Rockpocket has done a good job under difficult circumstances. That was the point that I was making, no more, no less; I was not making a partisan point or trying to continue the interminable childish debate about 'who started it'. Frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth of the whole thing, and I'd be astonished if Rockpocket isn't as well. We've had the ArbCom - how does prolonging the discussion (including here) help anybody? Let's move on. Taking the liberty (sorry Rockpocket!), I invite the next person following in my footsteps to archive this discussion. Haven't we got better things to do? Such as: this gentleman (at least during the week) is crying out for his Wiki article to be expanded, and - I had to laugh - there seems to be a shortage of Admins prepared to get involved in sorting out this mess. Let's all go and do something constructive - please!--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree Bonkers, well said. And thanks for the link, for all the horror associated with the Troubles, its undeniable that there were some remarkable characters involved. Rockpocket 17:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


I was doing some "new pages" speedies this evening and came across DJ Christopher Craze which I thought was pure advertising. Another editor had already tagged it for 'more references". Is it considered rude to add a "speedy-spam" tag in this instance? I haven't done anything yet. Bielle 03:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this guy is non-notable, and most admins would probably delete this under WP:CSD#A7 rather than as WP:CSD#G11. However, by the letter of the policy its probably not strictly a speedy candidate, as I think there are probably sufficient claims of notability. Personally, I would use the {{prod}} template with this and, if that is removed, nominate it at WP:AfD (or let me know and I can do it). Rockpocket 06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you would do it. It takes me a very long time to find, assess, find template (having to read almost all of them every time as I don't know them yet), insert, notify author, and then, with copy vio, try and do all the reporting. My first one of these copy vio's, Busse Combat, took me 7 tries and my sandbox to line up all the pieces. (If you want to check and see if I have done it correctly, that would be helpful. I found the website only because the article arrived, complete, almost immediately after I tagged it for a speedy. I wondered how it was written in that space of time; it wasn't.) Thank you for all your help, but it's bedtime out east (3:00 am) for us oldsters. Bielle 07:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Following the Trail

You showed me how to check on admin status quite some time ago. A discussion I was having with Resurgent insurgent on his refusal of a Speedy Delete I had put on William McKeen became moot when he said he was an Admin. Assuming then that he was doing his job of following up on an editor's Speedy, I backed off and apologised. There is no symbol on his page denoting admin status, though he has a "category: wikipedian adminstrators" on the bottom. When I clicked that link, though I found his name listed, the page itself warns that the list is not accurate and the only accurate one is Special:Listusers/sysop. I cannot find Resurgent insurgent in this list, nor can I find an RFA for him under the title Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Resurgent insurgent. Where have I gone astray? Thanks for your help. Bielle 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that Resurgent insurgent has taken off another of my Speedies (Eaton Hotel) after someone deleted a photo and a lot of the text. His summary said "doesn't look like an ad anymore" which is just nonsense. I am not going to argue the toss, however, if he is an Admin just doing his job. (He could still be wrong, of course, Admin or not, but it's not worth an argument when the matter is merely one of judgement.) I'd appreciate your opinion. Bielle 06:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bielle. Strange one this. Resurgent insurgent claims to be an alternative account of both (talk · contribs) and Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh (talk · contribs). was an admin (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ and Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh still is. If an admin returns under a different account and can convince a 'crat of their identity, they can get their tools back under the new account. That would explain why there is no record of Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh's RfA. However, Resurgent insurgent doesn't have the tools. He has never has. I expect its simply a case that Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh was logged in with he alternative account and decided to deal with a few speedies. Its not a particularly helpful thing to do, of course, but I doubt it was with any intention to mislead. Let me have a word with him to see if we can sort it out. Rockpocket 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, Rockpocket. I seem to have an affinity for strange ones. I was once good at informal forensic accounting and also taught body language, so I suppose oddities stand out to me, by training and experience. Most admins are quite humble about their roles, and most would tell me, even thought they were an Admin, that didn't mean they were right, or words to that effect. There was something not quite the ticket about the flatness of his statement, thus the query. I shall look forward to the conclusion. Too many sockspuppets spoil the play, I think. Bielle 07:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My work keeps getting erased

Rockpocket, somebody named KAtremer keeps erasing my work on the Twisted Metal article, it's pissin' me off. Could you block this user from editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talkcontribs) 00:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request for identification

[2] Resurgent insurgent 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a policy-compliant sock. Only the account with the long-winded name has ever had admin powers (the actual ability to delete, etc). Resurgent insurgent 06:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if this has changed now and the admin powers have been moved. Today, Resurgent insurgent seems to have blocked Lawwithal according to that user's discussion page's revision history. Is blocking something one can do without using an Admin's tools? Curiouser and curiouser. Bielle 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at the log for said user. Only that account actually does blocks. The other account (this one) signs off. Who actually does an admin action is recorded unalterably in the logs. That is what you should be referring to. The sig on the talk page is not as relevant - it might have been edited by anyone. Resurgent insurgent 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
That is indeed true, but this incident surely shows it needlessly confusing, especially for less experienced editors, when you split janitorial tasks between different accounts. I also don't think it is policy compliant, per WP:SOCK, to use a non-sysop status sock puppet account to carry out administrative functions (such as WP:CSD reviews). An administrator's entire record should be available for review in their contribution history, splitting CSD reviews between different accounts means this is not possible. If you disagree, perhaps we could move the discussion to WP:AN to sample wider opinion? Rockpocket 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As one of the less experienced editors, I can only agree about the confusion. As far as all the readily accessible records show, though they are now archived from his user page, Resurgent insurgent claims to be an admin, but is not one, and appears to be doing admin work. It is only if one has the skills to go deeper that it is possible to discover what actually is happening. This is further confused by the fact that "real" admin, Awyong_Jeffrey_Mordecai_Salleh has no user page and redirects straight to Resurgent insurgent. Bielle 00:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that I have not taken any unreasonable measures to obfuscate my administrative identity. The redirects are meant to hint that these two accounts belong to the same owner. Furthermore, both accounts' contributions and logs are linked from User:Resurgent insurgent.

If either of you still feel that having edits split between two accounts is a matter for community censure, I do not object to you raising this at AN/I. Resurgent insurgent 02:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to suggest there is any mis intent in your actions at all. I have no reason to believe that and thus I have no wish to censure you. I just think our policies are quite clear that sysop tools are to be restricted to a single account and, that follows, sysop actions should be restricted to a single account. I have requested wider opinion at WP:AN. Rockpocket 21:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Well I never said "have been" so I don't know where you got that from, and as for referencing then how do I? How do I reference the history of Hip-Hop over the last few years? Should I reference lyrics? Should I reference interviews? If so written or spoken? Should I reference TV? Should I reference Black rappers reffering to Latinos as niggas? What please tell me how because even though you might not want to admit it for whatever reason, this IS fact. Just listen to HipHop and you'll find out for yourself. One of the reasons why Latinos are allowed to say it is most definately because of the close cultures between blacks and latins. Latinos have also been involved in Hip Hop culture from the very begginning and are a big part of it and have been apart of alot of the same struggles faced by blacks. Please just let me know so I can edit correctly what is already known. TeePee-20.7 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The text you added says, "Latinos on the other hand have been granted a higher acceptance in using this word... " [3] have been granted a higher acceptance. Thats where I got that from. So what exactly are you trying to say?
  • If you believe Latinos use the word more frequently than other groups, then that is fine, but you need to provide a reliable source that says so. A reliable source is a document, book, quote, interview that explicitly says "Latinos use the word more frequently than other groups". What you can't do is say, listen to Latino rap and you'll hear it. That is what we call original research and is not permitted.
  • If you believe African Americans are more accepting of Latinos, specifically, using the term, then fine. But again, you need to provide a source that says that explicitly. Inferring that "because of the close cultures between blacks and latins" is a synthesis of unrelated information to forward a view, again not permitted. By the way, something similar to that is already noted down the article, "Some African-Americans express considerable offense when referred to as a nigga by Caucasian people, but not if they are called the same by other African-Americans, or by some other minority, as a term of endearment." This would appear to support your belief, but the source does not relate it to Latinos specifically, just non-caucasians.
The problem with your edits is you are making claims about one group of people specifically without any support from reliable sources. In an article a contentious as this one, 'everything has to be sourced scrupulously. Have a look at it, every single sentence has a source apart from yours. This is because everyone has their own opinion on the word, and we have to ensure that what we report is not your personal opinion, but that it is verifiable. If you can provide sources, then let me know and I can show you how to cite them, if you can't I will removed your edits in a day or two. Rockpocket 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
OK first let me say sorry about "Well I never said "have been" so I don't know where you got that from" comment I made as I was only paying attention to the edit summaries that was my bad. Now to address your points the first point I am not debating as there is no way of really knowing that and alot of other groups use the word profusively. To address your second point I don't know a source that would specifically say that. What is a reliable source? Any of what I previously mentioned? To address your third point yeh that is kind of true not EVERY sentence is referenced but alot of the article is. And actually I just quickly checked then alot of the referencing is wrong. So anyways can you please directly address what I said before your reply. TeePee-20.7 01:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cell Signaling

I see you listed yourself as a participant on WikiProject Cell Signaling. This project has been reactivated, if you are still interested. Biochemza 20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Get off and stay off my talk page

You are not welcome there and its is a just pure provikation that you are posting there - DONT DO IT AGAIN - you are not needed there - there are plenty of admins about watching this situation and you - who I consider a disgraceful excuse for an admin and not required to get involved and inflame situations involving me. I know all you want me to do is explode and get banned but its not going to happen, please use your bitterness in a more constructive manner and stay away from me - its the best thing for wiki!

Have a nice evening and control your endless rage.--Vintagekits 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Just so you know, you are welcome on my page anytime, so long as you keep your tone civil. Your opinion of me is of little importance (I think we have already established that, considering your threats of violence in the past), however what is important is that you adhere to the terms of your probation. As you were unable to do that on this occasion, do not get the right to determine which admin enforces ArbCom's remedy. Too many good admins have already been burnt out by dealing with your disruption (cf. Fozzie and John). If other admins are unable, unwilling or just disinclined to do engage with you, then I will and no amount of vitriol from you will intimidate me from doing so.
I'm curious - if Sir Fozzie is "burned out", why is he busy posting final warnings on my talk page for the "crime" of trying to introduce some neutrality into Martin Meehan. Apparently now the rule around here is that any Irish admin may defend any Irish article in the interests of maintaining Republican POV and go to the lengths of posing as "lapsed" in order to trap the unwary. Flippin heck. What a place this is. LiberalViews 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I did expect it was too much to expect that you might actually prefer I offered you a courtesy warning rather than block you immediately? No matter, it won't happen again. Let me say it again: if you edit civilly and adhere to your probation, then I'll stay away from you. Its really not that difficult, plenty of people do it. Good evening to you too. Rockpocket 01:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You sound like you are going to cry, you really are obsessed with me, it's sad really but hey I cant do anything about it - you should really just concentrate on editing articles whic hI notice you rarely/never do! You are an involved admin and cant touch me even if you wanted to - even if I actually did something, god its a joke - It must kill you that you just can ban me doesnt it. Just stay away from me and I will do the same - enjoy your time on wiki and dont spend too much time plotted to get me banned - I'm not worth the hassle honestly.--Vintagekits 02:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You can tell yourself that if you want, Vk, but it was specifically noted that the admins involved in your case do not count as "involved". I will block you if you revert war or are incivil. Its a clever tactic to try to claim that any admin who is familiar with you history is involved and thus can't deal with you anymore. But it doesn't work. You can also try and convince anyone you wish that I am "obsessed" with you, that I "hate" you, that I "plotted to get you banned" but its all a reflection of your own prejudices. You are saying those words, not me. I hate to break it to you, but I don't care about you, personally. I care about the project and I care when it gets abused. This is the one thing you don't seem to appreciate - just because you see everything in terms of a personal and political battleground doesn't mean that those you have personal issues with, have a have personal issue with you in return.
Moreover it doesn't make any sense. If I wanted rid of you so much, why did I unblock you from your indef block? I was the blocking admin and no-one except Gold Heart (talk · contribs) (what an guy to have on your side, eh?) protested. I suggest instead of trying to turn this into yet another conflict, you just stick to the probation, treat other editors with a modicum of respect, and then we can both go about our business. Rockpocket 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Rockpocket, I'm sure you have the right to enforce the Arbcom re Vk, but is it a good idea? It certainly isn't necessary with so many other Admins watching everything. Why pour petrol on the fire? And btw, I thought GoldHeart was genuine too - we can all be wrong sometimes. (Sarah777 02:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC))
Really? Where are all these other admins watching everything. Fozzie? Oh, he is on a extended wikibreak because his health suffered dealing with Vk et al. John? Oh, he walked after Vk mounted a campaign to discredit him. I don't see them, Sarah, perhaps you could point them out to me. And even if there are others around, I presume they didn't notice Vk has done exactly what ArbCom said he shouldn't. Its not as if we work with a hivemind. As far as I can tell it is pretty much only Alison and myself that have Vk's edit range overlapping on our watchlists. Furthermore, Firstly it was John (talk · contribs) who had it in for Vk, then not too long ago Alison was the person who, in Vk's mind, had it in for him. He seems to have since warmed to her again, which is nice. But because I was the one who took it upon himself to present the evidence indicting Vk to ArbCom, now I am the guy out to get him. Can't you see how it works, whichever admin is dealing with Vk presently is the one he attempts to paint as having a personal vendetta against him, so that he can claim to be the victim of admin abuse and get them off his back. Or do you think it is more likely that three completely independent admins all chose an entirely innocent Vk to "hate" and "plot" against? I'm sorry, I refuse to be intimidated into leaving Vk to edit disruptively just because he claims I "hate" him. This problem has nothing to do with me, and the solution need have nothing to do with me either. All he just needs to stick to his probation and he can live a life free of all the admins that are out to get him. Its that simple. Rockpocket 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Few things in life are simple. (Sarah777 03:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC))
In this case I disagree, Sarah. Look around, there are hundreds if not thousands of editors that edit without getting blocked, without edit warring, without assuming bad faith, without immediately thinking anyone who disagrees with your edit is your enemy. Look at OnIH. I have no idea what he thinks of me, really, he could "hate" me even more that Vk, yet we manage to interact in a perfectly civil manner. He edits in the exact same sphere as Vk yet manages to do so without resorting to antisocial behaviour. Let me tell you something else, I also edit extensively in an extremely inflammatory subject - animal testing - and there are a number of editors there with extreme opposite person views from me. We differ in opinion completely on some editing matters but does that mean we insult each other or feel the need to accuse each other of bad faith and edit war over it? No, one of them nominated me for adminship (and the others supported). So, is it really that difficult to not edit war and not insult people? Not if you don't want to. Rockpocket 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This is all very interesting. I have fallen foul of several editors recently for posting to Irish-related articles. Most recently, I had the cheek to do minor but positive edits on Great Irish Famine for which I was villified by one Irish editor, who campaigned with an admin to have me RFC'ed, a campaign the admin ignored, and now Vintagekits has stepped in following a minor edit to Martin Meehan where I was removing a false claim about a source. Do I detect a pattern here? Are a dedicated group of Republicans attempting to control the Irish, and most particularly, the Republican interpretation of Irish history, articles in Wikipedia? If so, admins need to get a lot tougher. Reading back through the last few months of material on this, it does look as if this plot is winning, which is presumably why admins are having to give up, as above. Time to be much tougher I reckon! LiberalViews 11:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, by removing sourced information and adding your own interpretation of events instead of sticking to what the sources say? Good start! One Night In Hackney303 11:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Show us where in the sources it says he "was beaten by british soldiers and required 47 stitches". It says no such thing and you know it. Note that the other piece One Night in Hackney re-instated was apparently an implication that IRA beatings resulting in confessions were justified. Note to all admins; this is the belief system we are dealing with here. There is no liberalism, no discussion of ideas, none of the bedrocks on which Wikipedia is built - apparently in the Republican vision of Wikipedia, confessions produced by torture are fine and believable! LiberalViews 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Footnote #2 links to this article, which says "Soldiers of the regiment finally caught Meehan, and give him such a beating that he needed 47 stitches in the back of his head"? So where's the false claim or propaganda as you also described it? There is none, the only problem is your failure to read the source properly. As regards the confession, you are not adding your own opinion of the events, stick to what the sources say. One Night In Hackney303 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"Are a dedicated group of Republicans attempting to control the Irish, and most particularly, the Republican interpretation of Irish history, articles in Wikipedia?" Or are a bunch of British nationalists/Unionists attempting to control the interpretation of Irish history, and all Irish-related articles in Wikipedia? Are new "contributers" being created under a very thin disguise for this purpose? (Sarah777 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC))
Please, Sarah, that doesn't help any more than the accusations from the other side. Please do not allow one disruptive editor's to spark a resumption of the wide-ranging coinflict.
I have myself just verified the that info quoted by ONIH is indeed in the article cited, so the text should not have been removed. I invite LiberalViews (talk · contribs) to reinstate the deleted material and withdraw the allegations made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see that LV is blocked, so can't reply. On probation too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I don't believe there is any Irish Republican plot, or for that matter a British plot. There are a number of editors who strong personal POV appears to make if difficult for them to interact on this subject in a manner the community expects. Clearly ONiH is correct on this particular instance. Lets not spin it out into something it isn't. Rockpocket 21:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This is obviously right. Speaking as someone who (foolishly I admit) has become inflamed on these articles in the past, I'm pleased to see such informed and accurate discussion on these points. One small thing - I wonder if LiberalViews was an unwitting "victim" of VK's actions that might be construed by some as trolling. Not that he/she should have responded that way, but just a small consideration that this is part of a wider picture of potential abusiveness. MarkThomas 12:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The only problem with that theory is that, even ignoring their conduct on the Great Irish Famine talk page, VK's post on his talk page was at 11:29, whereas the POV edits were at 11:21 and 11:23. So let's not portray him as an angel who reacted to some alleged trolling, as that isn't the case. One Night In Hackney303 12:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This surely goes to the heart of the issue though; the above description of "POV edits" surely relates to a content dispute - why is inserting the word "allegedly" for example proof of abuse? This is a confusion between editing quality and behaviour. Behaviour is the main concern here but the real disputes that have gone on are down to disagreements about specific points in articles. MarkThomas 13:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite simple, the source doesn't say "alleged", it goes into detail about it. The use of "alleged" is highly selective as well. Why is it a fact that the informer was "beaten and interrogated" (after all, the judge described his evidence in court as "poor quality"), yet it's only "alleged" he confessed? Simply, anything supposedly pro-Republican (although I fail to see how someone confessing to being an informer is pro-Republican) is "biased propaganda", yet anything anti-Republican is absolute truth, that makes sense right? One Night In Hackney303 15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, we seem to be going round in circles. My point was that LV appeared to be having a dispute about content, or at least, the quality of a source, which to my admittedly non-expert eye I have to say looks less than overwhelmingly compelling. Fair enough. But above, you claim (One Night) that in response to my point that LV may well have been provoked by what apparently was a VK troll, that these cases of content disagreement or POV as you describe it (something incidentally I have been told off for accusing others of in the past) prove LV was being abusive prior to that. In fact, the cases you cite are simply disagreements about the context or evidence in the source. You may or may not be right about that, but the point you make above is incorrect - LV was clearly provoked. I have to say your approach in this (conflating content disagreements with accusations of abuse of policies) is not new to me from what might loosely be described as "the Irish" segment of opinion hereabouts. Which is my point - that the content disputes are what matter and all the allegations chucked about, whoever they are from, should (as admins here are quite rightly pointing out) be stamped down on. MarkThomas 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Erm, no. Check the edits. He claimed the information wasn't in the source in question. Jack Holland is a reliable source, or is it a case of he's reliable for saying an IRA member was interned without trial, convicted of various offences, but if he says they was beaten up by soldiers he's an unreliable source? You can't have it both ways. If you really think Jack Holland isn't a reliable source, then I suggest you do some research on him. "LV was clearly provocative" - fixed your mistake for you. One Night In Hackney303 20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In the context of this discussion, it doesn't matter if Jack Holland is reliable or not. The point is, that LV was having a dispute with you about the issue of his reliability. He wasn't at that stage being abusive, as you falsely claimed above. In fact, this isn't the first time this type of misrepresentation of points has been used in this debate. It isn't against the rules of Wikipedia to challenge a source or make a change to an article based on one's understanding of it. I'm afraid it speaks volumes for One Night's understanding of how Wikipedia operates that he thinks disagreement with the quality of a source is abuse. MarkThomas 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, yet again. He removed sourced information claiming "propaganda", saying the information wasn't in the source provided when it clearly was, before any post from VK on his talk page. I'm afraid it speaks volumes about you if you're incapable of seeing what edits were made and when. One Night In Hackney303 21:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
What he actually said in an edit comment was "WP is not propaganda" which is actually quite true! To be fair though that was 8 minutes before VK paid him a visit so you have a technical point there. But not on your earlier pickups to support your line that it is an abuse of Wikipedia to challenge an Irish newspaper source. MarkThomas 21:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's quote him in full, I checked and neither of the stated sources say this. WP is not a propaganda outlet. He removed the text "when arrested he was badly beaten by soldiers and needed 47 stitches to the back of his head". The source says "Soldiers of the regiment finally caught Meehan, and give him such a beating that he needed 47 stitches in the back of his head". So, was his edit (and edit summary) right or wrong? One Night In Hackney303 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning placed on User talk:Vintagekits

I totally endorse Rockpocket's warning, [4] which was extremely lenient. I think you should have received a block. He is doing a good job of attending to the ArbCom ruling and has every right to post on this page. Kindly stop telling him not to. Kindly stop making personal attacks and accusations against him or I will block you for harassment. Tyrenius 12:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the warning. I would also like to comment on the above "Too many good admins have already been burnt out by dealing with your disruption (cf. Fozzie and John)". Thank you for the compliment, and you are substantially right that I was "burned out" by my involvement with this editor; I purposely did not participate in the Arbcom (although I followed it, and considered participating a number of times), because I was happy with what you, Rockpocket, were saying and my input would largely have been to endorse your view on things. I also recused myself from involvement because I did not feel I could have been credibly seen as a neutral participant; if you recall, I lost it with Vk shortly after he had repeatedly called me a "cunt" in emails. This was followed by a campaign of anonymous emails, in which I have no evidence Vk was involved, though of course I have my suspicions. It is thus impossible for me to assume good faith in such an editor, and it is therefore better I let others deal with him. I trusted the uninvolved community to deal effectively with Vk. It seems that was not properly done. This saddens me.
I see recent edits by Vintagekits as directly breaching the terms of his parole; here for example, he is assuming bad faith, here and here he is being uncivil on Northern Ireland-related topics, here he is, relentlessly POV-pushing, contrary to policy, on a NI-related topic, and, worst of all, here he is, claiming he doesn't even know he is on parole (although the arbcom case was closed a week ago, and includes the phrase "Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility") in a post in which he also accused you of having a "twisted and bitter agenda".
I don't want to get drawn in again to interacting with this editor, but I do think that we need to bring in other, completely uninvolved admins to look at this. In the nature of this user's modus operandi he will accuse any admin of being against him, of having an agenda, etc. At this point, ten different admins have blocked Vk, and it should probably be yet another one who does the next block, when, not if, it becomes necessary. Indeed, I think we are already at that point right now. Sorry to leave such a long message; I'll close with my favourite recent Jimbo quote: "All editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby." Best wishes to you, --John 18:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If uninvolved admins are wanted, I suggest taking this sort of stuff rapidly to WP:ANI. My last trip there was profoundly dispiriting, but that was different circumstances, and it remains the best place to raise things with uninvolved admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't as simple as it seems, I disagree with Rockpocket. John cites 5 examples of "behaviour-in-breach" by Vk; 2 are examples of incivility, pretty mild stuff unless one is building a case; one is failure to WP:AGF! In the context of the clash all over the British/Irish issues I think very few are doing that. The last case, apparent unawareness of the terms is odd but hardly important unless the terms are actually being breached in a significant way. But John's example that illustrates the CORE problem here, not recognised by many of the involved admins (IMO), is illustrated by John's selection of Vk's defence of use of the tricolour in relation to the IABA. According to John he is "relentlessly POV-pushing, contrary to policy, on a NI-related topic". That is total nonsense. He is actually making some very valid points refuting British editors who insist that because the competition is held in Belfast the Union Jack must fly over the article, even if it doesn't fly over the event. Without committing to whether I think his argument is ultimately right or wrong, to dismiss it as John does reads to me as pure POV; and very provocatively expressed POV at that. (Sarah777 20:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC))
I am not a "British editor" (far from it!!), and I find that assumption offensive. Vintagekit's explanation of our edit dispute on his talk page is exceptionally lame. The set of flags previously used in the World Amateur Boxing Championships article were used to identify the host cities. There is absolutely nothing on that page that mentions IABA, so I think that Vintagekits retroactive rationale is a smokescreen. His POV is quite clear — he does not recognize any flag for the "occupied six" (his term), despite honest good-faith efforts (I hope) at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage to come to a consensus of which flag to use in each identified situation. Andrwsc 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting John. The examples you provide above. I'm not sure those sorts of comments will ever change, I guess some people are just, shall we say, abrasive by nature. There is some argument that cultural differences may explain differences in editing style and its anglocentric to set one standard of civility on everyone (Vk's justification of calling other people "cunts" was based around that gem. Apparently Irish people call everyone "cunts" (except their priest and their mothers) and so it was a verifiable form of address. You have to give the guy credit for that one.) There may be something in that, and so I think its not too much of a problem to put some of his comments down to him being a bit of a rough diamond. Of greatest concern is that his style immediately sets any discussion over content off on a confrontational foot. We ask editors to "take it to the talk page" rather than revert war. But when the opening gambit on the talk page is laced with accusations of POV pushing, bad faith and politicized rhetoric, its not much of an improvement towards sorting differences out civilly and respectfully. Without commenting on the merits of either argument about the flag issue, one thing is clear. If you compare the method, style and attitude of Andrwsc and Vk you can see the difference. This has nothing to do with being Irish or British. Its to do with the fact Andrew made an edit that he considers to be rights and justified it politely, without suggestion of motive and in context of the encyclopaedia. Vk reverted that edit that he considers to be wrong and justified it impolitely, attributing motive, and in context of a political POV.
This is the over-riding problem. Its not single edits here and there that result in Vk's ongoing conflicts, even though those are what provided as evidence. Those are simply consequences of his rumbustious editing style and I don't think it is even possible that will change. This is why I supported an indef block last time. Nevertheless, that hasn't happened and its not as if ArbCom were not provided with evidence of his style. Thus we can only assume they do not consider that a good enough reason to restrict someone from editing. So instead we deal with the problem using the addition remedies ArbCom provided. Despite what Vk will tell you, that doesn't mean trying to get him blocked, it means ensuring he keeps within the terms of his probation and keep him from further disrupting the project. To that end, i'm not too bothered what he says about me (its only the outbursts of personal attacks and threats of violence that I am bothered about) and if it provides him motivation to adhere editing policy by thinking he is getting one over on me then thats just fine. Whatever floats his boat.
Towards BHG's point. I completely agree that would be the best course of action. However, here is the rub. The background to this is overwhelming. And, in my experience, few admins have the inclination to get involved. After the whole sock- and meat puppetry incident, those that commented at ANI were essentially the same people who were already "involved" (i.e. those that has some experience of Vk). Say someone esle was to review with just a cursory overview of the most recent incident, they would most likely say "no big deal" and move on. No one particular incident reflects the weight of the persistent problem. Say someone was to review with just a cursory overview and decided, enough is enough, and issue an indef block. As we have seen before, this summons the Vk fan club who start to campaign. We hear how the blocking admin blocked Vk while ignoring the "other side" , that s/he isn't familiar with the provocation Vk has to put up with, etc. So what happens? Either the uninvolved admin backs away completely or they get more involved, and then, of course, we hear cries they are no longer an uninvolved admin! Its a system that means no matter what admin takes action, there is a reason why that person is not the appropriate person to do so. That said, if it helps calm the storm, I will first go to AN if Vk violates his probation again. Only if there is no-one willing to enforce ArbCom's decision there, will do it myself. Rockpocket 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest as a safeguard for admins attending to the ArbCom ruling that an admin proposing to act under it with a block/ban first posts the intention and gains the support of, say, at least two other admins before acting. Maybe a sub page could be created specifically for this purpose which admins could be notified to watchlist. The idea is not to provide a forum for a debate on the issue, but simply to see if there is additional admin support. I feel it is unfair to expect one admin to stand up alone in this environment, especially as Rockpocket seems to be bearing the brunt. Tyrenius 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I endorse that. It is not fair to good editors like Andrewsc to have to be treated like this. Every little bit of incivility from Vk incrementally drives down the overall level of civility here. One of the things I always liked about editing Wikipedia was the civil atmosphere. That is why I was so ashamed by my own reaction to Vk's goading and abuse back in July. I am prepared to do whatever it takes to prevent bad editors spoiling the atmosphere for the majority of good and civil editors here. I very strongly do not want to work in an environment where calling people cunts is acceptable, or where every single edit which doesn't fit the narrow POV of one particular little group of editors is ascribed to bad faith, a pro-British conspiracy or whatever. (Anyone who knew me in real life would laugh at the idea of my being pro-British.) Civility is non-negotiable. Learn and adapt to that, or leave, would be my message. --John 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that I'm not the only one having problems with Vintagekits. It's quite possible that since I from the south of Ireland it makes things worse. He doesn't like the Ireland I portray, the Ireland I live in. And as soon as he returned from his period of being blocked, he laid into what I had to say. My inoffensive comments that "Royal" in the (southern) Irish context might be perceived a harmless manifestation of the dwindling West Brit culture caused him problems, so he deleted them. He also vandalised my talk page. If there was ever an example of breach of probation, look no further.

Two other points. Forst, if I lived in England, or was a Unionist (I'm not), I'd be an easy target. But the fact that I come from the Republic must make it far more irritating. Vintagekits once told me something along the lines that, "there's far more to being Irish than merely being born and brought up there, as any scolar (sic) will tell you". ANY scholar! No scholar's ever told me that. Perhaps he's thinking of some sort of stage Irishman: the one that fits the image he's trying to put across of "Irishness", which, it seems, I don't. Second, we must not allow ourselves to be harrassed out by Vintagekits and his ilk. Stand firm. Millbanks 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that he is now editing anonymously as (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Andrwsc 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Not unless he's changed ISP in the last few days it isn't. One Night In Hackney303 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
My mistake then. I certainly don't know his ISP, but the two edits by that anon. certainly look suspicious. Andrwsc 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Honest enough mistake, I just thought I'd better say something before anyone decided to do anything rash. One Night In Hackney303 22:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Its not really Vk's style to log out and edit with IPs. Thats one of the few policies he hasn't got a record of abusing. Plus it would be suicidal for him to do so in such a blatant manner. More likely a sympathetic editor who has been following the debate decided to log out and stir things up. We could request a checkuser, but I doubt it would find anything.
I like Tyrenius' suggestion but would be concerned that lack of participating admins could be a problem. If there are only a handful of us with an interest and we are spread across a number of timezones. As such, I wouldn't want to be in a position where admins were hamstrung from taking perfectly reasonable actions simply because there were not two additional interested admins currently available to offer support. Likewise, I can see how it would be used as another argument against any admin action ("Not fair, you didn't get support from two others"). However, I would be happy to raise any action I intend to take on such a forum before I did so. If there was opposition to it I would certainly listen to it and take counsel, but I would prefer it be couched in terms of giving other admins the opportunity to discuss it, rather than getting the required numbers of support. Rockpocket 22:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm here against my better judgement, but two different people have asked me to at least take a look. (in fact during the arbcom someone suggested I might have some role to play in helping out) I'm an outside observer and don't at this time have all the background but it's often the case that where there is smoke there is fire. I would not be surprised to learn that there are multiple parties here not being as civil as they could be. I agree with John that civility is something to strive for, and that we don't want to enable bad behaviour by accepting "I was provoked" as an excusing reason. So, without taking any sides just yet, I'd like to ask everyone, even if they feel they have been already, to be extra careful to remain civil, to do what they can to not provoke things and in general to be the best we can be... I think I can ask that without taking any sides, without ascribing anything to anyone. Will it help? Maybe not but it might work better than civility blocks, which hardly ever work. ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The trouble, Lar, is that there seems to be different standards of civility being applied. - "where every single edit which doesn't fit the narrow POV of one particular little group of editors is ascribed to bad faith, a pro-British conspiracy or whatever.", said one Admin above. I have reason to believe, based on the sequence of posts in the thread above, that I am one of that "little group". Yet were I to accuse a "little group" of editors of anything similar I'd get the whole A-Z of Wiki-policies thrown at me, starting with WP:AGF running through WP:NPA and finishing up with lectures about the necessity for WP:NPOV. I'd be concerned, for example, about the inbuilt prejudice in an approach outlined above (in relation to Vk), that only the Admins who know him must stay involved because a casual observer who simply examines the facts as written might say "no big deal". Jesus; I could (and DO) say exactly the same about many editors in the camp who are in the business of goading and provoking Vk and many other editors in the "little group". (Sarah777 02:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
I think you are misunderstanding that point, Sarah. I'm not suggesting that "only the Admins who know him must stay involved." Quite the opposite, the more people who choose to investigate this whole mess the better. What I am suggesting the Admins who know him must not be excluded, simply because they have blocked him previously. Are you suggesting the warning I issued was with the intent to "goading and provoking Vk"? Rockpocket 02:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Sarah, I endorse what Rock says above. I'm sorry if my comment offended you. I would never argue against AGF, one of our core policies. However, you may find if you ever receive abuse on-wiki and in emails like I did from another user (and I sincerely hope you never do), your capacity to assume good faith of that user, and by extension of their defenders, will decline somewhat. We are a very forgiving community, but we also have a history of ejecting those who prove unable or unwilling to conform to our norms. --John 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
John, just for the record, fortunately I have not recently received abusive emails though I did get a whole series of (anonymous) ones last Spring. I guess when they are "unsigned" they don't seem so personal somehow. (Sarah777 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

If I see people goading Vk I won't take kindly to it. If I see Vk acting badly I won't take kindly to that either. Every one of us needs to set the past aside and try anew to be the kind of editor that is a joy to work with, even when one disagrees with them about something, not least because one can be confident that there aren't going to be threats, invective, allegations of conspiracy, etc and so forth thrown by them. That applies everywhere not just here. We do have a history of ejecting those who prove unable or unwilling to conform to our norms. That means that sometimes we lose valuable contributors, unfair as that may seem, but that is unfortunate. This is a project, not an experiment in social justice. ++Lar: t/c 05:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, I respect your opinion and welcome your other eyes on this situation. I'm very happy to listen to any advice you may offer me, personally. However, If civility and collegiate editing, ensuring editors are "a joy to work with" is the aim, I wonder the value of commenting here. You are preaching to the converted. No-one involved in this conversation has a record of incivility or problem editing that I am aware of. No-one is even being accused of that, again as far as I am aware of. If you are asking whether we welcome your input and endorse your goal, then absolutely. If you are suggesting that we (and by that I include anyone who contributed to this thread) specifically require an external review of our editing with respect to civility, then I think you may be tackling this from the wrong angle. The problem ain't here. Rockpocket 06:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite.[5] Tyrenius 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Record at arbcom"?

Hi, Rockpocket. I noticed this post of yours, which suggests that you take an interest in Giano's arbcom candidacy. If that's the case, I think you might like to know that he's never been sanctioned by the ArbCom, for incivility or anything else, so I'm not sure what you refer to with "his own record at ArbCom". These were the actual findings relevant to him in the so-called Giano case: [6] [7] [8] [9] Btw, if you scroll around a little on the page linked to, you will see a totally different person actually coming in for serious criticism, and being told he must go through a new RFA if he wants his sysop bit back: Tony Sidaway. If rumor has it otherwise, my guess would be that it's because rumor where Giano is concerned gets continually massaged. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

Hello Bishonen. I wasn't referring to any case where Giano was a party, I was referring to a case where the manner in which he chose to involve himself drew some amount of criticism. See, for example: [10] The individuals I was discussing this with were, I'm sure, well aware of that. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding and wouldn't want to give the wrong impression, so would be happy to rephrase my comment to make that clear if you would prefer. I was not even aware Giano was party to an ArbCom himself, so clearly I have not visited that particular massage parlor. However, on scrolling down I note in its remedy ArbCom did request Giano "avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat." In consideration of the more recent actions I referred to, it appears Giano didn't pay much heed to a remedy from the organ he now wishes to join. A case of "do as I say, not as I do" perhaps? As for Tony Sidaway, as far as I am aware he is not running for ArbCom, so his suitability for that position is not of immediate concern to me. Rockpocket 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Criticism? Oh. I wasn't aware of that. I had merely heard Newyorkbrad talk about how impressed he was by the job Giano did on that case. But since the "Troubles" was on a very contentious subject (contentious even for an RFAR), of course I would expect there to be lots of "criticism" between the various camps. No, Tony isn't running for ArbCom, I just thought it of some pertinence to mention how the main reputation-massager in the case fared "at arbcom" himself. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
Really? I wasn't privy to Newyorkbrad's opinion of the case. While my experience with Brad has always been pleasant, hearing that doesn't particularly instill confidence in his suitability for ArbCom either. I don't consider name-calling to be "impressive" and I wouldn't be comfortable with an ArbCom that endorsed that type of behaviour. I don't believe I have ever had the occasion to interact with Tony Sidaway, so I couldn't really comment on your allegations. Rockpocket 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Giano indeed laid out a very cogent presentation of relevant evidence in "The Troubles" case. It was one of the best organized evidence presentations I've seen in any arbitration, and I've followed pretty much every one for over a year now. Of course that doesn't mean that I was in agreement with every word of it, or with some of the other comments that were made. The important thing at this point is that all parties to the case comport themselves properly from now on. As for ArbCom candidacies, being a candidate myself I am not expressing a view on who the best qualified candidates for the committee are—certainly not when no one has even asked me. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I too was impressed with Giano's evidence (and told him so). It goes without saying, that was not what drew the criticism. I'm relieved to here you were not specifically endorsing some of the other comments that were made. Rockpocket 00:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

Rememberance DayLest We Forget.png

--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 00:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you help me?

Why did you not answer my reply which I posted under Nigga and instead chose to wait until the the couple of days you promised and then removed my edit? Why could you not aknowledge my reply and answer me!? TeePee-20.7 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tee Pee. I was just passing by Rockpocket's page when I noticed your question here. I am sure Rockpocket won't mind if I say that your earlier question is still on the page; it is #18, above. As you can tell by the great long scroll of words between this one at #24, and your original one, he has been kept more than a little busy. I don't know what more he could tell you, except to emphasize that what you need to reference reliable sources (like newspapers, magazines and books, many of the which, in the case of the first two sources, are on line) that state not just that Latinos use the word "nigga", but that they do so with the a "higher acceptance" than would be given to other groups. Just because we "notice" things ourselves is not acceptable for Wikipedia; it's called Original Research WP:OR. Reliable, knowledgeable, recognized, third-parties must write about the phenonmenon before you can incude it in an article. Song lyrics, for example, might show that the word is used, but not the degree of acceptance that use has. If Rockpocket has more to say, I am sure he will get back to you as soon as he can. Bielle 16:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Again, Tee-Pee. I'm sorry for cutting our conversation short. As Bielle notes, I have been rather busy recently and had a flood of edits to my talk page. That tends to mean I occasionally miss posts further up. Bielle is also correct that I don't believe there is much more to say. In your response you said: "there is no way of really knowing that" and "I don't know a source that would specifically say that". That, in itself, demonstrates that the material is not suitable for our article. If it can't be verified or attributed then it shouldn't be there. You asked about what a reliable source was: read WP:RS. You also noted that there was some material that was unsourced. If you think that material is incorrect, you can add a {{fact}} template to the material you are querying. If a source is not provided then feel free to delete it in a day or two. You also noted you thought "alot of the referencing is wrong". I would be interested in examples of that, as last time I checked the references were very tight. Still, that is something that should be looked at, feel free to bring up your concerns on the talk page and we can discuss it there. Finally, if you do have some sources you believe supports the material you wish to add, feel free to list them here and I can show you how to cite them in the article. Rockpocket 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if I overstepped some Wiki boundary, or, more important, some Rockpocket boundary. I thought it was possible that you might not need to read about yet another editor sending annoyance your way. I can't help you with any of the rest, but I could run interference on this one. I promise not to make a habit of it; I am not, after all, your wife/mother/secretary/girlfriend/ mistress/daughter or grandmother. :-) Bielle 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Not at all, Bielle, I'm glad you did. Your response was very helpful. Having another independent editor re-iterate the point can only assure the querent that there is policy for what we are saying. Please feel free to jump in with advice whenever you can! Rockpocket 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For repairing vandalism to my user page. --John 00:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


With reference to this, Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 10:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks nothing like a revert to me. In fact a case could easily be made that you were attempting to gain the upper hand in a content dispute to due his probation. One Night In Hackney303 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Showing the reversion and the reverted-to version is not going to show you what was reverted, since it should be the same. That is why it "looks nothing like a revert" to you. In reality it was a partial revert, he removed "County Londonderry" (which I had added in the previous edit as attempted compromise between his and various anonymous IPs revert-warring over the Stroke City issue). You will also note that, in response, I said I have "no preference" and did not revert his reversion. Hence I didn't edit war and hence there is no "content dispute" from my end. Neither did I take any administrative action. I was simply noting that his he reverted twice and thus was in breach of his probation, just one day after he has been warned about the very same thing. Your allegation is entirely unfounded. Thanks. Rockpocket 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at the terms of the probation, and I'm not even convinced the article in question is covered by the probation, unless "the Troubles" is being taken to mean "anything related to Northern Ireland", and I'm not aware that's the case. So exactly who is making the unfounded allegations? One Night In Hackney303 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion is duly noted, thanks. Rockpocket 20:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You might also be interested in this interpretation by the case clerk, which explains the foundation on which I made my comment. Rockpocket 21:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That's because it's to do with the whole flags situation, which is covered by the probation. Admittedly not the Ulster Banner, but along very similar lines. One Night In Hackney303 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I consider, and I very much doubt I would be alone in that among the admin corps, the dispute over Derry/Londonderry and over Irish/British nationality of individuals to be germane to the over-riding problem ArbCom has attempted to curb. The content itself may be disparate, but the behaviour (edit warring/assumption of good faith/political justification for edits to an encyclopaedia on a subject of Irish/British contension) is consistent. Wiki-lawyering over whether something is directly related to The Troubles is defeating the point of the remedy, which is to ensure the Irish/British editors involved seek other ways to resolve disputes rather than simply revert because someone they consider to be an opponent made an edit. That is exactly what Vk did here (with a bonus for allegations of bad faith in the first instance, his edit summary indicates didn't even review the edits before reverting) and this is exactly why I noted it. He has now had two warnings from me, that will be the last. Rockpocket 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you seek a clarification from ArbCom, rather than making an ill-judged block on an editor you've been repeatedly asked to stay away from. One Night In Hackney303 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom's decision to be perfectly clear - what is considered germane to the remedy is at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. It would have been "ill-advised" of me to block Vk in this instance, which was why I didn't do so, didn't threaten to do so and didn't say I would do so. I don't consider requests from Vk and his sympathizers to ignore his probation violations particularly inspiring, though I am happy to take counsel from neutral, trustworthy individuals. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you seek clarification from ArbCom as to whether their decision prohibits me insuring Vk adheres to their remedies. If it does, I will of course respect that. Rockpocket 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There is certainly a perception at this point that Rockpocket has embroiled himself to a great extent in the affairs of Vintagekits. I understand that he originally came to the case as an uninvolved administrator, and is pursuing his administrator duties in good faith, but the fact is that any further warning or block by Rockpocket on this particular editor at this particular time, particularly if the existence of a violation is disputed, is going to become unnecessarily controversial. Under these circumstances, it would probably be best to report any concerns to a noticeboard such as WP:ANI or WP:AE for discussion rather than act unilaterally in this instance. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Brad. I have asked Fred Bauder for some guidance here [11] this situation certainly needs calming. Giano 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Rockpocket - regardless of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of your position right now, what you're doing here is only inflaming an already difficult situation. While I understand you are uninvolved here and just basically doing the job, it is lending to a perception that you are exercising a vendetta against Vintagekits here. I, along with a few others, are working hard right now to appoint a strong, uninvolved admin to act as mentor and mediator here and I believe that approach is in everyone's interests here. My personal take on this, as someone who indefblocked Vintagekits in the past and held my ground on it (hi, Giano!), is that we are striving here to provide a cordial environment where everyone can edit. Banning VK is not going to miraculously achieve that. Furthermore, a block from an admin that VK despises will hardly be seen to be fair, regardless of circumstance. I strongly recommend that you disengage from this right now, as I largely have, and allow an uninvolved admin evaluate this - Alison 23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. You can all be assured I will seek counsel from experienced and trustworthy admins before I take any administrative against Vk in future.
However, I would note that despite the speculation above, I had no intention of blocking Vk, nor issuing him with a warning that he would be blocked. ONiH came to my talk page suggesting "a case could easily be made that you were attempting to gain the upper hand in a content dispute to due his probation." This is spurious and unfounded because A) there is not dispute over content from me (I made a single edit in an attempt to compromise between edit-warring individuals per WP:MOS) and B) there was no "upper hand" to be gained as I never made any use of the tools, threatened to do so or asked anyone to do so, or made any attempt to re-revert. Unlike him I chose not to revert back and engage in an edit war, instead inform Vk he had done exactly that, which seems an entirely unprovocative course of action in comparison of edit-warring. Unless of course we are suggesting I am supposed to refrain from interacting with Vk whatsoever in article space.
I am also troubled by the number of editors seem concerned enough to comment on my actions in this incident, one having gone to the length of suggesting it "smacks of the goading that brought about this case in the first instance." Yet has anyone considered Vk's edits? I only ask because I don't see the same concern regarding his. For example, consider this revert of a perfectly appropriate and justified edit. Vk's summary you should not censor this article in that way. Request sources first. is strange for someone who, one would expect, reviewed the edit and and decided it would be better in its previous version. Why? Because the material I removed was already tagged with {{Fact|date=August 2007}}. So, could anyone come up with a plausible reason for reverting that other than the fact it was an edit I made? Perhaps, Giano, would you consider that this edit "smacks of the goading that brought about this case in the first instance." If so, you might consider bringing that to the attention of Fred, or at the very least expressing your concern on his talk page. Or is goading from someone sanctioned at ArbCom less appealing then the opportunity to accuse an administrator?
So, as I have said before. I am happy to take counsel on this issue from responsible and trustworthy editors, but not Vk and his groups of sympathizers, who are simply attempting to tar me with his brush. Please also note it is not only I saying this, John, Tyrenius, and others have expressed similar concerns. Vk has a long and incredibly persistent record of low-level incivility, edit-warring, harassment, and politically motivated editing relating to Ireland in the UK. It is the insidious and persuasive effect of these accumulated - in conflict with others - that got us to this point. It is no surprise that the people who the have the greatest administrative experience of his record are those expressing these concerns most robustly. This is because we have seen it all before from this editor and we have seen how poisonous these sorts of edits are to the atmosphere around these articles. It is also no surprise that it is these three editors (who, incidentally, are completely independent of each other in terms of editing interest) have been accused by subjects of the ArbCom case of having a vendettas. So, put an effective mechanism in place to enforce ArbCom's remedies and my administrative interest in this is gone, otherwise I will continue to monitor Vk and others edits from an administrative standpoint and seek appropriate action (in counsel with others). Rockpocket 01:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Without getting into specific disputes. it was intended that Vintagekits be on probation. If he doesn't turn himself around, he's out of here. Just don't take the lead. Fred Bauder 05:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your aren't my son, but . . .

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you . . .

I do believe you practice Mr. Kipling's point. I am also reminded of "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it is sometimes difficult to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp." Some alligators have pretty vicious bites. :-) Bielle 06:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Bielle. Your wise musings always seem to strike exactly the right chord, and have an uncanny effect of providing perspective without ever demanding it. You, and our mutual friend, share a deft command of language and appreciation for brevity I can only dream of! Rockpocket 08:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
My heavens, but that is extraordinary praise indeed! The thought is very kind, but our friend is in a class by herself. It is also the first time in my life I have ever been accused of "brevity". :-) As for "demanding" perspective, whenever anyone tells me to "take a deep breath", my initial desire is to promptly expel it, with force, to accompany a karate chop. Fortunately, I know nothing of martial arts. Good night! Bielle 08:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy hour?

I noticed Special:Contributions/ and wondered if it is cocktail hour in Manchester again? Take care of yourself and try not to let this campaign of incivility bring you down. --John 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha! Someone clearly isn't very happy with me - a few too many pints of Guinness over lunch, I expect. Thanks for your support and also for your (and others) efforts in keeping my pages vandalism free. Rockpocket 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Chabelo project

Hello mentors we are creating this article about Chabelo, who is a famous Mexican actor. We would thank you if you could help us with this article, it could be with information or corrections. Please put your comments in the discussion page of the article or in our discussion page.

----- Lirdoco —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesco88 (talkcontribs) 13:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hunt Retribution Squad

Hi just thought I should explain that whilst I was the user who expanded the "No Compromise" reference and did quite a bit of the editing on the article, I was only doing so to expand the article and to also try and clean it up!! Have fun! ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I guessed as much. If no further edits are forthcoming from the anon IP, I will see what I can dig up myself (no pun intended) about the group. Rockpocket 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Greetings and a Request

Hi Rockpocket. Firstly, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page the other day. Nice to know there are friends out there who are looking after me.

Secondly, I’ve been having a to-do with a user named Timeshift. We have a number of articles of common interest, and our paths cross from time to time. I made 7 edits to Andrew Fisher on 8 October. He’d been working on the article on and off since March. He didn’t like some of my edits, but rather than reverting just those ones, he reverted all 7 back to his previous version. In his edit summary he accused me of “pushing my agenda”. I took exception to that and went to his talk page – User talk:Timeshift9/Archive4#Andrew Fisher. He replied on my talk page to explain his position about one of the 7 edits, and finished with a rather rude remark about “going around trying to find holes that aren’t there” - see here. The rest of the discussion continued back on his talk page.

In the meantime, the thread above Andrew Fisher, titled "What the?", was about my edit, so I took a look at Timeshift’s reply to WikiTownsvillian Arvice 4 - August to October 2007 here - see "Thick as a Brick". I had no problem with the Labour/Labour spelling issue, and I’ve apologised for that edit 4 times now, but I did object to “hes done a lot of IMO manipulative changes lately”. My username was not mentioned, but it’s clear who Timeshift was talking about. So I added a postscript to the ongoing discussion. To this day, Timeshift has never justified that charge of manipulation (or anything else for that matter). Anyway, I’d made my point, countered his charges, and his silence denoted that he had no ammunition to back them up. I was happy to leave it at that and thought the lingering sour taste in my mouth would soon subside. I even became conciliatory here, when I alerted Timeshift that other editors were still getting the Labor/Labour spelling wrong. His response was snide, and the exchange was showing signs of quickly degenerating so I decided to quit before it escalated.

Next, Timeshift asked a question at Andrew Fisher's talk page here. I was a bit wary of responding but since nobody else seemed to be getting involved, I thought I’d give my opinion. I hoped, naively, that Timeshift had let bygones be bygones as I had, and would deal with the content of the edit and not descend into personalities. You can see what happened next. I sent him a strongly worded - but not inappropriately worded - message to his talk page which he deleted with "or how about fuck you?", and then proceeded to add to his talk page a list of people he suspects are sockpuppets of Joestella, including my name. I've asked him to remove it or I'll take it further. (You'll see I also found an occasion to draw attention to WP:JACK, so kudos to you for creating it; not that I think it will have any impact in this case, but miracles do happen.)

After that lengthy background to give you flavour of this mini-saga, I seek your advice as to the best way to proceed in the event that Timeshift doesn't respond appropriately to my request/demand. Or even if he does. I'm not going to suddenly become uninterested in certain articles just because Timeshift is one of their co-editors, so we're going to come into contact again sooner or later. Any thoughts would be most welcome. Cheers. -- JackofOz 03:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jack, you are very welcome regarding the vandalism revert, I assumed it wasn't you editing anonymously. I had a read through your interactions with Timeshift. At the very best his edits appear to lack the collegial spirit we should be aiming for, and at worst there are a number of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF transgressions and some WP:OWNership issues. I'm not sure anyone will be able to convince him to work together with you, so perhaps the best you could expect will be respectful tolerance, which is all we can demand of others, I suppose. However, at the moment he is some way short of that, and what you don't have to tolerate is him labeling you as a suspected sock puppet on his page, neither should you need to put up with these sorts of comments. I'll have a word with him to ensure he is aware that these edits are unacceptable. In the meantime I would continue what you have been doing, making edits as you see fit and explaining the reasoning on the talk page, if he continues to edit-war, or be incivil in discussion, then feel free to draw my attention to it again. Rockpocket 07:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort, Rockpocket. I do appreciate it. -- JackofOz 12:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket. The pacifist side me is inclined to just let the Timeshift9 matter slide. The assertive side of me says “No, my user name is still on a list that suggests I’m being branded a sockpuppet”. The latter half is still winning. While Timeshift does not directly accuse me of sockpuppetry, and has since amended the sentence to say these 3 people “acted like” Joestella, anyone who reads the list and wonders just who this “Joestella” is, would find, as I did, and I’m sure you did, that Joestella has both suspected and confirmed sockpuppets. It’s indirect, but to my mind it’s still a real connection, and therefore an inappropriate accusation. Timeshift does not specify just what Joestella’s particular action/s was/were that caused him to create this list, nor does he specify what it was that I did to upset him that made him think I belong in this exalted company. This is tantamount to saying “JackofOz acted like Hitler” – he may just have been thinking of Hitler’s and my common practice of scratching our dandruff, but without that explanation, it’s reasonable to infer a rather different and much more sinister association. Timeshift has denied the list has anything to do with sockpuppets, but what other reasonable conclusion can I – or any reader of his talk page - come to, in the absence of any further explanation from him? My good name at Wikipedia is important to me and I want to put this to rest once and for all. Any suggestions as to where to from here? Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave it with me, Jack. Rockpocket 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, RP. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mirror

While doing some research for Paul Magee I came across this which shows you how good they are. The Mirror says:

Magee killed SAS captain Herbert Westmacott in a gun battle in 1984, three years after he escaped from Belfast's Crumlin Road prison. He was convicted of the murder in his absence and was later captured in the Republic.

Everyone else says:

Magee was part of an IRA unit that killed SAS captain Herbert Westmacott in a gun battle in 1980, then he escaped from Belfast's Crumlin Road prison in 1981. He was convicted of the murder in his absence and was later captured in the Republic.

Quality journalism! ;) One Night In Hackney303 19:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality Volunteer! (Sarah777 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC))


Thanks for the message and apologies for the delay in response. You are correct in what you say about stepping back, and I don't anticipate stepping forward again in the forseeable future. I think you have done your best and are right to hand over the baton to the next relay. Let's continue Kipling from above:

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

Not that "all men" is quite right... poetic licence! Tyrenius 20:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

help with an article

Help with an article

Hello we alredy upload our article called Tenango del valle and we were wondering if you can check it and correct it if it is wrong. Thank you DanielaB

Thanks for dropping by

But the real congratulatins are to you. When is publication date? David D. (Talk) 13:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, its not finalized yet. We just sent back the final proofs and they appeared to have a 2007 doi, so I expect it will go online in the next week or two and be published in December. Rockpocket 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

6.125.12 Inquisition

If you want a small laugh, you might take a look at the Ref Desk: Humanities for the above-captioned section. Clio sails serenely right through the middle of the question, ignoring completely the sniper fire aimed from bank to bank, and the rest of us look just as silly as we are being. I do seem to draw them out, don't I? I think I will stop taking up defences, even when I think someone has been unfairly attacked. It just draws the exchange out for far too long. I am beginning to feel like I am the "moron" as Tarabon accuses; most of what he has written, aside from the absolute clarity of his fierce light on my spelling error, is impenetrable to me. From whence came the "renowned benefactor" and to what purpose, I wonder? Bielle (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Hi! Are you crying out for reinforcements? Hey, sorry man, I didn't want to hurt you that much, seriously. Well, actually didn't want to hurt you the slightest. But I always assume questioners (with one 'n') are intelligent people, and though I may be wrong more often than not, I still do it because I feel it is the right thing to do. No need to be crying in everyone's talk page, this matter isn't that important. Regards. --Taraborn (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Rockpocket. You didn't deserve all this. I shall have to edit my writing more carefully in future. What I thought was amusingly rueful, Taraborn reads as crying. I hope I haven't left puddles on your floor. Bielle (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I missed it all, I'm afraid. I don't have much time for those that resort to pointing out spelling errors, so perhaps its just as well. Rockpocket 09:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

chemical imbalance/chemical imbalance theory

Notwithstanding the concentrated effort to alter the CI article or POV fork it, there is another article entitled CIT which is about the same topic and this looks to be a POV fork. There would be very similar editions of both articles if one looked at the history. As I understood it CIT was supposed to redirect to CI but apparently not. One editor on the CI article adamantly states that there is no such thing as a CIT. He believes, and I tend to agree with him, that scientific literature has never used the term. I did a fair bit of work to get the CI article to NPOV. The CIT article appears to be a coatrack or a deliberate POV fork. I don't have a lot of experience with problems like this, what should be done with this situation?--scuro (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat-Belated RfA Thanks :-)

View of loch lomond.JPG

the emily mann page

Hello rockpocket

I'm emily mann, also logged in as erehana. I have recieved a message from you in regards to my page- I have had to remove information as it was misrepresentative of me. the page was made by someone to promote his little war on contempory art, and, aged 17, i got dragged into it, being a model, and booked to pose for a photographer who ehibited with him. i was then booked to pose for other art works, but it was just my news worthy status (reality tv supermodel...sadly) that he fed to the press and continually attempted to tye me personally in with his little campaign- that i myself, artistically and personally, would never had been involved with. he would use my name when calling the press to get a feature, which was misrepresentative, and made this page with no real intention behind it other than his own self promotion. i would rather have my page deleated than any search engine confusing me with their group as it is misrepresentative of what I really do and has become damaging. I would love to know your thoughts on the matter, and how you would advise me to manage the situation. He has done this to other people that I have come across and even work with, but hijacking their page and adding in his angle for self promotion, and I really do not want a war, I would rather have no page, or just be known for the modeling/ music / art that I have really done, rather than was attributed to me and used my name for other persons self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erehana (talkcontribs) 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have replied in detail, here. Rockpocket 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate curiosity

Considering your obvious familiarity with SlimVirigin and the information already provided at the top of the thread, its very hard to interpret this edit as anything other than a continuation of the campaign MONGO mentions. It certainly doesn't strike me as "leaving it alone for now". Please let it go. Rockpocket 03:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I watch the noticeboard pages and when I see a discussion that appears to be about a subject that apparently can't fully be discussed, it makes me curious. Especially in light of recent revelations of a lot of secret machinations happening off-wiki that affect actions on-wiki. What does this have to do with what was discussed above? Now I'm really curious. If you say, though, that it is SlimVirgin related, I'll let it go, but I'm still curious. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying its related to the trolls that harass SlimVirgin. The actions taken on that article are in the spirit of WP:HARASS, which by its very nature necessitates a level of privacy. Unless you wish to be counted among those trolls, I suggest you do let it go. Rockpocket 17:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Foundation to support animal protection.

Thank you for making the re-route but it just doesn't convey the information. FSAP is not another name for peta, it is PETA's cash cow. PETA makes grants, sometimes 90% of them to FSAP, but FSAP doesn't spend much, at least not on programs. So the money is written off by PETA, but it never leaves the building. Annually averaged over ten years 20% of PETA's gross is transferred to FSAP and it sits there. FSAP was cited by charity navigator as the worst charity on program spending in June 2005. Approximately half a penny per dollar that they spent was on programs, and that, was from the 2.6 million they spent. An additional 5 million dollars remained in the coffers that was unspent. (Charity navigator took them off review after the sudden change. The refiled 990 is still available on guidestar.) When it became public knowledge that they suck, they committed tax fraud by simply refiling their tax return and taking the expenses, salaries, rent, insurance, phones, etc. and renaming it programs. They then became 100% efficient from the 0.46% before that. The story needs to be told. pikipiki (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the allegations about creative accounting that FSAP/PETA uses. If there are sufficient reliable sources to justify a stand alone article about FSAP, then that can replace the redirect. If you can write that, then please do so. Until that time, however, it appears to be appropriate that it redirects to the PETA article where the foundation is mentioned as an associated body. Rockpocket 17:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

for the collection

WP:RD/S#Power lines, and electric shock. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (but Atlant gets more of the credit)


[12] Good point, and put that way I think I agree. (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, my goal is not to force him or anyone else to reveal anything. I'm as curious as the next guy as to who is involved in all of this, but nothing good will come of throwing them to the wolves.
I think individuals should take sole responsibility for their own public actions and what goes on in private should remain that way. Durova has done that, and Giano, I'm sure, would agree that its him not the person who sent him the email that, deserves any heat for its publication. I hoped that by turning the mirror back on those people demanding all private information should be revealed, they might reconsider. Rockpocket 08:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)