User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 26

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

Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27

And Domer

Rock, please read Tznkai's babble here. This c**p is surreal. Sarah777 (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rock I went onto my View and edit watchlist and one of the articles watchlisted is now ,,H,A,G,G,Ĕ,R ? (Talk)I don't know which article it used to be any ideas. --Domer48'fenian' 21:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Someone vandalized the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles page by moving to to that title. As a consequence, anyone who has that page watchlisted then got the new page watchlisted. It was moved back pretty quickly and the new page deleted, so you probably never noticed it at the time. Rockpocket 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a contrabutions for ,,H,A,G,G,Ĕ,R ? --Domer48'fenian' 22:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean a revision history (its an article space page, not a user)? It was created at 03:51, 26 October 2008 when Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles was moved to ,,H,A,G,G,Ĕ,R ? ‎as part of a pagemove vandalism spree. At 03:51, 26 October 2008 (within the same minute) it was moved back and a redirect formed in its place, then at 04:02, 26 October 2008 the article was deleted. Thats it. There could be some oversighted diffs that I can't see, but based on the timings above I very much doubt it. Rockpocket 00:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Again that Wiki-word. What does "oversighted" mean? (In the Wiki-sense, I know what it means in civilian life)? Sarah777 (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Before I forget....

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Manifest Integrity Barnstar
For calmness in the madhouse Sarah777 (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I know I've been "on your case" a bit recently - so just to let you know my opinion of your integrity isn't diminished though I reserve the right to question your judgment betimes (and only betimes) ;) Sarah777 (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed this at the time somehow, but thank you belatedly, Sarah. Rockpocket 03:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Breach of rules on the Provisional IRA article

  • (cur) (last) 13:35, 2 November 2008 The Thunderer (Talk | contribs) (79,936 bytes) (ref) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 13:24, 2 November 2008 The Thunderer (Talk | contribs) (79,904 bytes) (Undid revision 249169304 by Sarah777 (talk)Can't for the life of me see what the problem with their founding is? It's information) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 12:26, 2 November 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (79,882 bytes) (pl DO NOT make changes like that without discussion as per Arbcom etc) (undo)
  • (cur) (last) 11:34, 2 November 2008 Mooretwin (Talk | contribs) (79,904 bytes) (Better balance) (undo)

Rock, some tag-team warring here? Clearly the Mooretwin change was of a type that requires prior discussion? (Also the 'reference' given appears to be a dud). Sarah777 (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If I could draw your attention to this WP:3 discussion here and my contribution in particular here. Mooretwin who is also a party to WP:3 and aware of differing views is inserting information which they know is disputed. I don’t think it is being particularly helpful bring this dispute across a number of articles when a forum has been provided to address it. While I understand it can be a slow process, it is a process none the less. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 14:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of these discussions. I believed that PIRA was formed in 1969 and was able to pick up a book and have that confirmed immediately - I've included the ref. My major bone of contention here is that Sarah waded in and made the change without dicussion which is in breach of the sanctions. I felt I had the right to revert her and take the matter to the discussion page. After putting in a ref to verify Mooretwin's editing I can't see that the matter is a contentious one? If there is dispuet over this date then in my considered opinion it needs to be explained on the article because this is a reference piece which people depend upon. If PIRA were not formed in December 1969 we need to know why scholars are claiming they were (Richard English being a published professor of Irish history at QUB). The suggestion that Mooretwin and I are tag-teaming is an hysterical one. I'd be hard pressed to find an article where he and I have really come across each other. Thunderer (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have breeched your 0RR rule on the Article, in addition to the 1RR on the USC. I suggest you stop please. --Domer48'fenian' 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In my considered opinion the RR sanctions are for the guidance of the wise. when faced with minor issues such as this which have not been discussed on the talk page I believe we all have the right to make reversions. If not then the system can be gamed.Thunderer (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not issue the sanctions, ask SirFozzie he placed you on it. But I do think 0RR means 0RR. --Domer48'fenian' 15:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Let it go Domer; I think it was a misunderstanding. He thought I made an illegitimate edits. Sarah777 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Sarah - respect!Thunderer (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I hadn't gotten to it, I was still waiting on information on possible harassment related to VK that I never received information on when the issue was archived. I'm a bit busy at the moment, I just happened to log in just now for a quick check on the cases I'm clerking, but I'll try to get to it tonight.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have (literally) pages of examples of harassment from Vk you would be welcome to, but it is all many months old. Nothing (except the childish name-calling) since he was unblocked last time. I'll bow back out now. Rockpocket 00:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Lady Jane Grey and "Citizendium"

I just saw your note on my Talk page. I had not looked at the page since May 2008, having abandoned Wikipedia and its "open-source" format to the ill-informed masses. I will, however, have a look at the site you recommended. PhD Historian (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Shankill Butchers and Lenny Murphy

Hi, You have gone OTT with your revisions to the above articles. Other than one or two "citations needed", there was no need to remove so much of the text that was compiled with great care and without prejudice to either side in the conflict in Northern Ireland (I hope). I would propose to restore some of this unless you want take it to talk. For instance, the section about Murphy wanting to muddy the waters regarding identification as a way of causing doubt in the minds of jurors is fact, referred to in the citation at the end of the next paragraph. If it helps, I'll combine the two in one. And the death of Shaw has been toned down far too much to convey the brutality and viciousness of the killers. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC). And why remove the cut-throat murders for which the Shankill Butchers are infamous? They are indeed killings but more than the average sectarian murder.Billsmith60 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Most of my edits did little to alter the information provided, but much to remove the editorializing. For example,

"With his knowledge of police procedure, garnered though attending trials at Belfast Crown Court, it is likely that Murphy was trying to "muddy the waters" as regards identification."

How do we know what "it is likely that Murphy was trying" to do? Likely according to whom? We can describe what he did, but as an encyclopaedia it is not our position to infer what his intentions were. If you wish to provide analysis, rather than document fact, its important that we attribute that opinion to whoever holds it. So: "According to Dillon, Murphy was, with his knowledge of police procedure garnered though attending trials at Belfast Crown Court, trying to "muddy the waters" as regards identification." With this we are reporting what Dillon thinks, rather than telling the reader what we think. We, Wikipedia, do not hold opinions ourselves.
Another example,

"That decision was to have deadly consequences for many innocent people at a later date"

No offense, but that line would be clichéd in a tabloid report. Its not our job to generate drama using hindsight, we just report what happened when it happened and let the readers draw their own conclusions. I'm happy to discuss examples further on the talk page if you like. Rockpocket 21:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough re the "deadly consequences". But don't you see the contradictions in your own words (in [ ]): "With this we are reporting what Dillon thinks, rather than telling the reader [what we think] <-> [We do not hold opinions ourselves]."  ???? Surely you've got to report what this recognized source says, if it can be referenced, which it will be.Billsmith60 (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Update: "Cut-throat murders" is not a peacock or empty term. It is a specific type of killing that should need no explanation. But since you object to it, I have amended it slightly as a compromise.Billsmith60 (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I see no contradiction there in what I meant, but perhaps I would have been clearer if I said [We do not express opinions ourselves]. If you hold an opinion on the subject, that is your choice, but Wikipedia is not the place to express that.
As for the difference between the two options: we can report facts with just a reference, but we must attribute synthesis, opinion or analysis of those facts (from a reliable source) to the person making it. Dillon tells us what happened then offers his analysis of what Murphy was trying to achieve. Only Murphy knows, for a fact, what his motivations were.
That said, your compromise edits today appear fine to me. Thanks. Rockpocket 18:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and to you for your input. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's 67 socks and counting

Wowsers, Wikipiere is stubborn. Phew, thank goodness for Checkusers. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

About 40 of those are not mine. (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

About Mooretwin. Can you sort out these edits by him? (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin hasn't stopped his ways of removing ROI from pages such as here 4 Associations Tournament 2011. Could you sort it out? (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rock

Thanks for that Rock, it looked like it was going to hell in a basket. --Domer48'fenian' 18:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Rock, your changes were reverted again with the edit summary "deleted Holocaust-denier vandalism." Is there anything that can be done as other editors are also being reverted? --Domer48'fenian' 21:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet again?--Domer48'fenian' 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rock, the editor refused to heed the advice offered, but I don't think it is the last of it. --Domer48'fenian' 09:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Joel McHale article

Could you please tone down the semi-protect you put on the Joel McHale article? Three months of semi for four cases of weak BLP violations over one week is excessive and completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Only a highly contentious article should be granted a semi of that length. Thanks. Ip208man (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. Rockpocket 07:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello Rockpocket. Do you remember you said I could come to you if I needed any help? Well, this might not be the kind of help you were referring to. The thing is, I created two tables at the Partick Thistle FC article. One with the top ten appearances which is now complete. The other is the top ten goalscorers. I have completed almost all of the table barring a few of the players career spans. It is now starting to drive me nuts, I seem to be spending forever looking up websites for the information without any luck. I notice from your user page you have edited football articles, which is another reason I have come to you. Now, here's the cheeky bit, HELP! Any help or advice would be very gratefully received and perhaps prevent this user from being taken to the funny farm. I understand you are probably very busy elsewhere so would understand if you did not have the time. Thanks. Titch Tucker (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do this weekend, Titch, when I have a bit more time on my hands. Rockpocket 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank's Rockpocket. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ros Comáin

Rock, Would you move this page to "Roscommon" please? Some chappie moved it to "Roscommon (town)" - contrary to agreed style. But I couldn't move it back. Extremely irritating that. So I moved it to "Ros Comáin" as a temporary measure. Apparently you need to be an Admin, (for some reason that escapes me) to move a page back to its original name. Sarah777 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Rockpocket 21:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis

Rock, please see this. Matt Lewis has called me, and/or has implied that I am "right-wing", "racist", "xenophobic" and "hate-centered". Now Rock - this is way beyond the pale. If myself, or any of the other Nationalist Irish editors on a NI article had said anything like that blocks would follow without hesitation. I am reading things into the silence of at least half-a-dozen Admins on whose watch-list I know am - but will resist the temptation to cut loose at The Cabal just now! Sarah777 (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The silence that often surrounds Sarah in these matters bothers me too - she just sees it as a free pass, and she always responds to my objections to her comments by making sure she does it at least once again (she started it recently in IDTF). This is clearly part of 'The troubles', and I will be filing a report on it tomorrow (esp as she didn't let up - she carried on a again a bit in IDTF - which is 3 times now on the same provocative run). If I see her go too far, I object. Having objected, I see it again - and if I object again more strongly, she runs to an admin. I've had it in the same order before. It's obvious to me that there is a problem here - both with Sarah, and the anarchic state of Wikipedia surrounding this matter. There is certainly a rather sour cabal of NI unionists on Wikipedia - but can you blame them when they have to put up with this kind of crap? I don't hear the opposite cultural attacks from other established editor (ie 'anti-Irish' rhetoric like this) - and I would go as far as to say that no one else but Sarah would actually get away with it (I don't go for this 'hands are tied' rubbish - I've seen too much).
Anyway, warnings are warnings (whatever exact guidelines this matter comes under - I think it's all actually (wisely??) under Civility - which means I'll get thrown back in my face, of course), and this place isn't supposed to be a school playground, or a bizarre social networking site. I don't want to get anyone into serious trouble, but I simply take this seriously, and someone - just once - should tell her in no uncertain terms to stop. Leave the softly and the humour, and simply tell her to stop. It's not rocket science. If I don't get from the 'usual suspect' editors - I'll simply take another route (Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page perhaps) where I should find someone who will listen, and who may not be so 'understanding'. I'm trying you people via the troubles first, then I'll see what happens. As the offended party (a British citizen, and the provoked party), I will show zero tolerance in the future. I'm not humourless - but I have no humour for this at all - and there is no 'be a clown' policy that demands that I should. All editors are equal - we all need to follow the same rules - simple as that. I refuse to work in a place where someone is just allowed to break the rules like this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, let me be clear, I'm not "warning" anyone as an administrator, and if either of you want to pursue that route then I suggest you do so independently of me. You are both smart adults, and should be able to communicate without resorting to some of the language used in that thread.
I've read over the exchange and here are my thoughts (make of them what you will). Sarah: your opening salvo in that thread (NI clearly isn't a country - it is part of a country, whether that "country" is Ireland or Britain is disputed; but the notion it is a "country" is pure Wiki fiction.) was extremely provocative and entirely unhelpful. That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it, but you must be aware that there are hundreds of reliable sources that describe it as a country. Entering a discussion in that fashion is not going to help resolve it, quite the opposite. Then moving on with "If folk want a "country" they should have the courage to become soverign."' is entirely inappropriate for a talk page. It firmly enters the realm of political opinion. Its therefore hardly surprising other editors respond to you in the way Matt did. Bottom line: if you don't like people making inferences about your political opinions, stop expressing political opinions. Wikipedia is not the place for it.
Matt. If you are annoyed by the politicizing of a talk page discussion (and that is understandable), then don't get political in reply (As much as anything, this kind of hyper-nationalism is hugely right-wing). Can't you see that isn't going to help one iota? Its extremely provocative and really quite offensive. Tossing in racist and xenophobic is even worse. The best way to deal with off-topic political discussion is to ignore it and only respond to the relevant, policy driven points. Responding the way you did only escalated the issue. Bottom line: No-one is forcing you to respond to off-topic discussion you find insulting. So don't.
Thats all I have to say. I'm sure you'll both strongly disagree with my opinion on your own comments, but too bad: you came here. Neither of you covered yourself in glory in that thread, so I would give the complaints a miss and instead - when this situation comes up again - think twice about whether your contribution will help or hinder a resolution. Rockpocket 07:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you just looked at the one thread, and what you said isn't going to effect anything - not least Sarah leafleting Wikipedia with inflammatory politics. It's not 50/50 thing at all. Whatever I personally say to her wbout how I feel about it, I just deliberately get more of the same, and the deal on Wikpedia seems to be that I (and others) are supposed to just 'put up and shut up'. No and no again, and that kind of privilege sticks in my gullet.

I'm only in this particular talk page because Sarah came here - I'll put this to the 'Troubles' page later on. I know the routes I'm taking, and I stand by what I said at Northern Ireland talk. Although I would have been better simply filing a report, I'm not having my response 'cancelling out' her xenophobia (the word I used - and how can you say it's worse? It is my entire point) - and she knows full well how provocative she is being. My response to her is simply a separate issue. I've actually been extremely tolerant with Sarah on a number occasions, though I more often make the mistake of trying to address her. I've never set out to provoke or offend anyone - and politically, my comments and edits are well within in the rules (and I am including the above in this case). I actual make useful edits on a number of topics, and I am basically a 'benefit' to Wikipedia - so why should I have to read this?

The cancelling-out trick of 'Civility' may well often work in Sarah's favour on this matter, but I'll more than happily accept a block for what I said, if the end result actually meant someone had the courage to deal with her properly. I'd take a long block too, if it would result in cutting out Sarah's anti-British jibes from Wikipedia as well - and I'm not joking one bit. Her intention is to ruffle feathers and offend. Who the hell gave her that remit? It's not just about me - its the effect it has on others too. I just don't want to see it any more - it's never help her own causes, the project certainly, or anything positive I can think of at all. The Ireland naming issue was in a complete hole for a long time with the stupid "British POV" accusation, and it was largely kept there by her casual uncensored comments. It all just creates an atmosphere passers-by walk out of as soon as they walk in. Why do you think so many Irish pages are dominated by same bloody people? Why so many Irish pages are in a mess - I've even done basic edits on some myself, and I have no real interest in doing that at Ireland. At British Isles it can get even worse - with people admitting they don't go there. I didn't ask you to say anything to her personally (or have anything against you personally), but what you said to her above was about as weak as it gets regarding Sarah, and is effectively saying "move on" - but reading again you are not being an admin here, and without doubt I am going to take this on. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Rock, I see one reference to the claim that NI is a "country". A constituent country. I also note that Matt clearly thinks that civility shouldn't apply in his case when he is defending British nationalism. Why not? Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Google tells me that The New York Times, in 1977, said:
  • "Northern Ireland is a country where no children can grow, and the whole world is the poorer for it.".
It titled a 1972 article:
  • "Background on Ulster; The Country"
A 1998 review of the US media coverage on NI, in St. Louis Journalism Review states:
  • "Northern Ireland is a country with less population than the St. Louis metropolitan area, but 30 years of violence there has had repercussions far beyond its six-county borders."
The Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, in 2003, notes:
  • "One only has to walk the streets of Belfast to know that Northern Ireland is a country divided."
The St. Paul Pioneer Press, in 1995 reported:
  • "Northern Ireland is a country of shatter-resistant windows, bomb-proofed police stations, heavy security and daily anxiety."
Now there are also many more sources calling it a region or a province, but that isn't the point. The point is that the notion it is a "country" is not pure Wiki fiction. It just happens to be something you disagree with. Rockpocket 00:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope. It is an unusual description; you could make the same case for calling it a "failed entity". Sarah777 (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it is, but that isn't what you said. You said it was clearly not a country (so clear, aparently, that a number of extremely reliable sources are not aware of it), and that saying so is "pure Wiki fiction" (again, Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, and we have established that there are numerous reliable sources that call it a country). If you had said, at the time, that "country is an unusual description" and explained why then we wouldn't be having the exchange. Because that is not provocative and entirely unhelpful. What you did say was. Rockpocket 01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Can't agree that they are extremely reliable sources. I have already conceded that my wording could be better. I am most certainly not conceding that my point isn't forensically accurate. Sorry. Sarah777 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I never said you didn't have a valid point. You do, and it is one I would tend to agree with. But when you make it in a needlessly inflammatory way, it tends to come across as a point, and your underlying reasoning gets lost in the provocative language. All I'm arguing for is more light and less heat from all participants. Around contentious subjects, that often means phrasing our points carefully. I'm glad you guys have reached an understanding on this issue; I'm hopeful you'll both keep it in mind next time things get heated. Rockpocket 02:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

People spent hours putting the UKCOUNTRYREFS table together - I can't belive you both haven't seen it? It lists 36 reliable sources for all the Countries of the United Kingdom (where the table resides). I don't see what is different to NI than any other country settled in and made from another. It's hardly a unique occurrence in the world - and it's hardly recent in terms of being British, either. If the UK government (as the sovereign state) says it is a 'country', Wikipedia simply has to go by their word - so only one ref is really needed. I sometimes skirt around calling it a country in comments (use other sentence structures etc) to avoid the chance of distracting debate, but this will be an issue soon at the new country lists. It's much easier if can all agree on it, especially when nothing really is to be gained by disputing it (as with Wales, or anywhere). Anyway - having said that (to Rockpocket as much as Sarah), I'm out. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, so thanks for the link. What I meant when I said I tended to agree with Sarah, is that I see merit in the argument that "If folk want a "country" they should have the courage to become sovereign."'. I can also see the potential ambiguity in calling the four constituents "countries". That is my personal opinion, nothing more. More importantly than what I think, is how we can reliably source the naming issue in the context of the relevant policies. UKCOUNTRYREFS us a pretty useful resource towards that and would certainly appear to support the use of the term "country". Rockpocket 03:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you catch the tables below too? I'm not sure where to put the shortcut, and we need people to see them all. None include the word 'constituent'. The 36 at the top (someone changed ot 41) are additional to the 36 for each individual country below. That means Northern Ireland has 72, or 77 reliable sources that use "country" alone, from the UK Gov to the UN to the EU, the New York Times, the British universities and media etc. They are all completely unique, and are 100% reliable sources, from credible places. They were made to be a fortress against the trolls that used to plague Scotland and Wales in particular, and have effectively seen off most of them since they were made. We still get the occasional protests and short 'debates', but they are very weedy now compared to before. The same people go elsewhere for their kicks - one turned up to oppose the RM poll I noticed (and many are sock puppets of course). People who don't want the UK concons to be 'countries' do tend to have another, more honest axe to grind - from Malta, to Ireland (the infamous Wikipeire was one who hated Wales being a country) and Canada. Some may be excessively 'British', but hardly any by comparison in my experience. Being British is (most commonly) to recognise the constituent nature of the UK. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. Never saw that table before. Sarah777 (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought you knew about it. If you see someone start a potentially issue-diverting debate on this, quote UKCOUNTRYREFS to get things back on topic. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The UKCOUNTRYREFS card. Don't leave home without it. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/AE concerning Giano drama

Hiya Rock. I just read your "..don't give a sh-t.." comment there. Best chuckle I've had in a long time; Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The farting junkie song

There he was, behind the door
Eyes glazed
Fighting & screaming across the hall
He wasn't fazed

In his mind, behind the door
The world is great
Nothing ever bother him
As he's baked

But now & then
Without a warning
A loud noice occurs
The wind is blowing

With the passing of the breeze
He's suddenly awake
One couldn't blame, with such a stinch
He's no longer baked.

Written by GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
That really brought tears to my eyes. Titch Tucker (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Mine too, Peee-yeeew. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thats very good, GoodDay. However, you need a chorus:

He could have been the love of her life
Though he looks like a farting junkie
He runs a men's hotel in Brighton town
But to Jeanne he'll always be hunky

I think, you'll all agree, we have a partnership here with potential unseen since a young Mr Lennon met a young Mr McCartney. Now, who is going to write the music? Rockpocket 02:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey! What about me, I came up with the song title. If this is a hit I demand royalties. Titch Tucker (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not sell it to the Stones for their next album? Don't worry about the music, Keith will put it right. He was not the love of my life but the lust of my life. He was not a junkie, though. As for farting, I dont recall as I only slept with him once-FULLY CLOTHED.--jeanne (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
"Fully clothed"? How very . . . acrobatic! ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I was fully clothed-and so was he. Why would I have wanted him to remove his trendy checked trousers seeing as they were sooooo sexy. They were above the ankles, although you can't tell in the photo. GD and Titch you've got to mention his trousers and tattoos in your song. Bet you can't guess why he had tattoos?--jeanne (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Why he got tattoos? not sure. I promise not to needle him about it. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, definitely the emergance of a writing team. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
GD, were you by any chance Adrian Kronauer's mentor?--jeanne (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
How's this for a song verse You Wear it Well, At the Men's Hotel/A Little Out of Style but That's All Right/I Love Ya, I Love Ya, I Love Ya, Oh Yeah You think Rod Stewart will sue me?--jeanne (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Watch it folks! this place isn't supposed to be a school playground, or a bizarre social networking site. - Matt Lewis. You have been warned :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops, and I had always thought that Wikipedia was really just a front for a dating service. I came here to meet MEN!!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators VS Giano II

Hiya Rock. I don't know how this one is gonna end, but it's sure entertaining. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say distracting, rather than entertaining. Have you ever seen (or read) the House of Cards trilogy? Giano is like Francis Urquhart in The Final Cut. He overplayed his hand and is now embittered, embattled and desperately throwing mud in the hope something will stick. Some will, probably, but its only a matter of time before it is the end for Giano. Can you believe he had the gall to open with the phrase "I have always been reluctant to publicise quite how badly run the project is" (!) I'd feel a bit sorry for him if his hypocrisy wasn't so staggering. Consider:
  • During the period he was doing his best to get Kittybrewster banned, he attacked admins and ArbCom for knowingly KB was using an alternative account and not doing anything about it. At the same time, he was using his own sockpuppet CdB to insult Kb, yourself and others. When he recently got caught his excuse was the admins and ArbCom new about the account.
  • When he was checkusered, he complained bitterly about his private information being compromised. This is the same Giano who fought to defend Vk when he wrote another editors home address on WP. Why? Because the person's whose address Vk leaked was someone Giano didn't like.
  • His most recent claim is that checkuser privileges are being abused. Yet to get that information, someone with checkuser access must have abused their position and shared it. He is outraged by one alleged example of checkuser abuse, while being an active participant in another.
Giano is a spectacular writer and a real dominant character. But he has the mistaken opinion that that gives him license to do and say whatever he wants, while taking others to task for the same issues in the most self-important way imaginable. In that sense he is no different from the picture he paints of the Arbs, who he claims are running Wikipedia to suit their own agenda. Rockpocket 01:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been following all the hoopla and can't get away with all the politics involved. I think, no matter how long I stay around, I'll give those kind of discussions and debates a wide berth. Some of them should walk away for a couple of months to get some perspective on life. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a tragedy about it, for sure. Giano's has gotten himself in the perdicament he's in. I know I haven't been around as much as others (concerning this drama), but there's something Diva-ish about it. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that is a wise choice, Titch. I imagine most of the most voracious wiki-politicos are the sort of people that, given the chance, would lecture Gordon Brown on how to run the country with the sum knowledge they gained from two O-levels and a life of hard knocks. Those sorts of discussions are like a black hole. Once you cross the event horizon of Giano's talk page there is no escape. While the admins and the erstwhile FA writers play their power games, the real heart and soul of our community - the wikignomes - work away unappreciated. Speaking of which, I'm going to visit your Bobby Lennox just now, as wiki-penance for getting involved when I should know better. Rockpocket 01:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah Titch & Rock. I'm backing out of those AN/AE Giano discussions aswell. They're becoming a circus. Where's Joseph N. Welch when ya need him, (can somebody dig him up)? GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


We're not in agreement about everything, but you do appear to be making an honest effort at neutrality over articles relating to the history of Ireland. Any chance you could have a look at the Historical Accuracy section of the talk page for the film 'The Wind That Shakes The Barley'? I'm involved in a dispute over verifiability with another editor, who has asked a couple of buddies to "weigh in" on his behalf. ThanksThoskit (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll offer an opinion, though it may have to wait until later today as I'm a little busy. My initial thoughts would be that, since the reviewer is Stephen Howe who is notable academic [1], it could merit a mention. I think your section would have to be a little more carefully worded and attributed, though. Rockpocket 19:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The section wasn't originally my addition - I just thought it worth keeping.Thoskit (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks Rock, I hardly feel I deserve it, but it's much appreciated. Happy Thanksgiving to you. Truth be told, I thought you were Scottish, or are you Scottish American? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither actually, but I studied in Scotland for a while and, while I was there, developed a lasting affinity for a certain football team ;). I have long realised that, as an administrator, revealing one's nationality on Wikipedia has the potential to lead to more grief than revealing one's credit card details. Truth be told, while I hold a passport or two, I have lived in so many countries on a good number of continents that I don't consider myself of any particular nationality. Thus I prefer to remain a international man of wiki-mystery! Rockpocket 00:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You may be a mystery as far as your nationality is concerned, but if your not a Celtic supporter I'm a Dutchman. PS, my grandmother was Dutch. No,really, she was. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no clue what gave you that idea :P Rockpocket 01:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Titch, what Rock is really trying to say is that he is in point of fact James Bond.--jeanne (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Except in my case, it is a rock, not a gun, in my pocket. Rockpocket 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. And the ice is in yer veins rather than yer whiskey! Sarah777 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't James Bond half Scots, Titch?--jeanne (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

IP harassment

This IP is deleting my contributions at Talk:Ireland. This time Rock, I'd appreciate a bit less fence-sitting and a bit more action. If it reverts me again I want a block. Pronto. Tnx in advance. (I don't want/need a sermon on my beheaviour here Rock; OK? Sarah777 (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Rock. The deletions were stopped in their tracks - I just don't know how you did it. But now the IPs have gone moaning to Arbcom, of all places. Sarah777 (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Same here Rockpocket, another race-fixated IP has left an insulting, abusive diatribe against me on my talk page, which I have deleted, but has also placed the same on Big Dunc's talk page here: User talk:BigDunc. Isn't there any way to stop these idiots?They are the same people who have been hounding me for months--jeanne (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do anything, Sarah. I haven't been on-line all weekend. For future reference, the best way to deal with IPs !voting is to mark their comment with a {{SPA}} and then ignore them. The closing admin will then give the comment the attention it is due (i.e. not very much). Oh, and another bit of advice: I welcome any editor asking for help with a problem, but I don't respond as well to demands. If you want something done "pronto" you might consider that in future.

Regarding the IPs that have been hassling you, Jeanne. There is a limitation to what we can do, technically, to stop editors from non-static IPs. I can semi-protect your page to stop IPs editing it, but that would stop all IPs, not just this one. If it continues, let me know and I will do that. I would just ignore the allegations on Dunc's page. He is wise enough to see if for what it is, and I expect he will either delete it himself, refute it or just ignore it. Rockpocket 19:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Heck Rock - I know you don't respond well to demands; but when you ain't respondin' to nuthin' else a demand is more emotionally satisfying. Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I can appreciate that. To be clear though, I didn't ignore your request because of the way it was phrased. I spent a rather enjoyable day at the seaside with my wife yesterday, and so didn't even see your comments until this morning. Rockpocket 21:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
At the seaside.....
The seaside? In November? It's about -10 here at the seaside right now (inc Wind chill)! Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I parked the car at the seafront in Booterstown earlier, for about 15 mins while picking someone from the train - and this is what I came back to!
"At the seaside"? There is about 4 inches of white crystalline precipitation covering my back garden, the pond is frozen, the wind is knocking small branches onto the deck and it has just, since I started typing this, begun to snow again. Want to trade? ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Pond! Deck! I live in a cardboard box in the middle of town, and its raining! Wanna swap? Titch Tucker (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Listen to the rhythm of the falling rain...--jeanne (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI Rocketpocket, you may want to take a deeper look in to why I removed Sarah777's comments. See here.

Also, you may also want to familiarise yourself with the distinction between an SPA and an IP-based contributor. Because of ISP technologies such as DHCP, IP-based contributors may not have a very long contribution history, or it may be mixed with the contibutions of other people, but IP-based contributions to polls are just as valid as contributions by any other editor. There are many reasons a person may not want to take an account with WP, but this is still the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit".

I was involved in a dispute over this before. The AN/I thread is here. Can you pay particular attention to comments such as:

  • "There is nothing whatsoever in policy or common practice preventing an editor from participating [in a poll] merely because they choose not to log in"
  • "IP editors who understand policy are first-class citizens in any debates regarding article content."
  • "IPs have the same weight for consensus building as registered."

One admin has already made a hasty decision tonight, the last thing we want is for another to spread misinformation. Thanks. -- (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of the value, or otherwise, IPs may bring to discussions. Accordingly, well reasoned !vote will be given due consideration whoever makes it. Your contributions are welcome, and I would not support any moves to restrict IPs from !voting. We are the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", and accordingly you have edited.
The problem is that in this particular area, too many contributors log out and contribute anonymously, while also contributing under their own account. It becomes difficult to distinguish sock puppets, from valid IP based contributions. One solution to this is to ensure the closing admin is aware of this, the SPA template is a good way of doing that. Unfortunately, occasionally valid IP based contributors are the ones who tend to suffer because of this. But that is easy to avoid. All you have to do is make an account. Its quite simple: if you don't wish to risk being labeled an SPA based on contributions, then demonstrate you are not an SPA by establishing a documented edit history.
That said, for what its worth, I would have taken your comments into consideration because they were well reasoned. Rockpocket 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
" this particular area, too many contributors log out and contribute anonymously..." Looking back through the poll, I think I was the only IP to contribute before Sarah777 began her pointy behavior. Don't you find it ironic that my accuser from the previous AN/I thread turned out to be a compulsive puppet master? Do you not think that good faith should prevail unless there is compelling evidence for puppetry?
In any event, the damage is done. Two editors are gone home thinking it's okay to assume IPs are socks and one feels vindicated for engaging in pointy nonsense. -- (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
As I've been saying & Rock now says, create an account so you can avoid these problems of 'bad faith'. It would be beneficial to you, IP. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
"The encyclopedia that anyone can edit", GoodDay. Even those that lack faith :) Me signing up for an account will do nothing to solve the problem of their bad faith. -- (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't fully understand your hesitance IP. But, it's your chose. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not entirely clear with my original reply to Sarah, so let me try again: My advice to anyone who considers a !vote from an non-static IP suspicious, is to tag that !vote with with an SPA template. Then do nothing else. That way the closing admin's attention will be drawn to your suspicions, and they can use their judgment to decide whether it is, or is not suspicious. Had Sarah done that in this particular case, then there would have been no disruption, and the closing admin could make their own decision about the IP's !vote. I have already told you what I would have done in that situation, had I been the closing admin. I can't speak for the person who did close.
This doesn't mean that every IP should be tagged with an SPA account, nor that IP's !votes are invalid. Neither does it mean it is okay to automatically assume IPs are socks, and it certainly doesn't vindicate engaging in pointy behaviour in response (in fact, Sarah was lucky she wasn't blocked for sock-puppetry herself there. If someone had made a SSP complaint she may well have been).
It is unfortunate that non-static IPs, in this sphere, are afforded such suspicion, but that is a sad consequence of the poor behaviour of a number of editors who continue to try and game the system by logging out. Good faith only goes so far. I'm afraid you will have to live with that, for the moment, IP89, or else register an account. Rockpocket 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
How can an IP clearly identified as belonging to someone be an SSP? Are there Admins who'd fail to understand that let loose with Wiki-tools? Sarah777 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Where was the IP clearly identified as you at the time you !voted (having already !voted earlier from your own account)? Rockpocket 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My IP !vote was actually a null vote - I didn't vote either way; deliberately didn't because I wanted to be sure that Socking couldn't be alleged. But these folk never let facts get in the way. Sarah777 (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


I think it is quite urgent - the longer something gets left for, the harder it is to reverse. The note I left on WP:AN is only for a review rather than a reversal. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you rather than I removed the AN notice? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the big personalities involved, I think this will cause more drama than is needed. My preference is for the closing admin to explain what he closed and why. If he acknowledges the other discussions and maintains his interpretation, then I would support a review. My expectation would be that he would read the other discussions and then revert himself. I don't think waiting a few more hours would change that. Its up to you, though. Rockpocket 19:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Something weird has occured. We now have seperate articles Ireland (state) & Republic of Ireland; Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Correction. Ireland (state) has just been reverted into a redirect to Republic of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, I responded to this matter on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not sure I completely agree with your reasoning, but your conclusions are reasoned and the logic is clear. I expect there will be a moves to review your decision, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Rockpocket 21:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I imagine that tomorrow morning there will begin the flood of people confused at the move decision. Few will be actually aware of what happened, many may simply believe that consensus on the poll was for a move. Even if the do they won't know where to comment one way or the other: Ireland, Ireland (island), Ireland (state), Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation), the task force page, Tariqabjotu's talk page, or the AN/I??

I think it would be a good idea to set up an RFC on the decision and post notices of the RFC at each of the relevant pages. For one thing it will keep comments all in one place and allow us to gauge the measure of consensus - which may fall down on the side of 'it happened, leave it alone'. I don't think the RFC needs to be or should be controversially phrased, simple a statement of fact and a plain request for comment, but I think it would be useful as a means to calmly collect the response of community to the decision to move the articles.

As an anon, I do not have privileges to start the required RFC page, so I am asking if you would. (I am going to post a copy of this message on Tariqabjotu's, he may be interested in setting up the RFC himself. In any case his perspective on an RFC would be valuable.) -- (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So, on top of the eight locations listed you wish to create a ninth? Sarah777 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to post an RFC for you, if you would be prepared to draft its contents. You can use my scrapbook page. The reason I would rather not draft it myself is because I really wouldn't know what the locus of dispute actually is; everyone seems to have a different interpretation. Rockpocket 03:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RfC might want to wait a day jus to see what the result of the ANI is. Frankly, this, as a precedent, scares the fuck out of me. We already have problems enough with commons making content decisions for us off wiki, we don't need the ability to make up consensus on random talk pages and apply them else where outside of policy pages. I get that people find 'Rogue Admin' status as somehow chic, but all it does is prove the very worst of wiki half the time. --Narson ~ Talk 10:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a degree of sympathy for Tariqabjotu, as no matter how he closed this he would be getting criticized. I do agree that this move should not have been carried out on the basis of a poll on a task-force page. The task force should be coming up with proposals that the community can discuss. The situation, as it stands, is my favoured resolution. However, I don't honestly see how I could have interpreted the consensus as Tariqabjotu did, given all the discussions at the various venues. That said, I don't see a consensus for the status quo either, and I expect there was an element of filibustering going on since the status quo is typically the default consequence of no consensus.
Despite attempting to keep things calm as possible, while ensuring due process is respected, I still get accused of "undermining" Tariqabjotu. I don't need that hassle at the moment, so my involvement in this matter is over. I expect, correctly or not, this move will get reversed sooner or later. Then it will be interesting to see how important process is to this currently celebrating this "victory". Rockpocket 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The page movements sure changed the dynamics of the disputing, though. The pro-movers are now the defenders in the disputes & the anti-movers are now the protestors. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say, I told you so, but.... *puts hard hat on and waits for the shitstorm* Rockpocket 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops, on the ..told ya so.. were you responding to me? or Sarah777? GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it's gonna be quite a comotion. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Rock; may I remind you that you were not the only person to forecast a backlash? Instead of putting that had on you should become involved in the storm, use your powers as Ben and Deacon are doing get stuck in on the side of making Ireland a dab; jump off the fence - and stop sulking. I just knew your tactics were flawed here. Sarah777 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

civility question over an ignoring editor

Seeing as you're around (I can't believe I'm still up), is it a civility issue if someone ignores you? People are being told that I'm not 'discussing' in the edit-notes of a guy reverting me - but I have discussed my edits in Talk, and with him too, on his talk page - but he simply won't reply or acknowledge them. Obviously, it's over Ireland, but all the same.. The article is there to edit so I am entitled to edit it. I only doing sensible stuff too. When it comes to genuine editing I think civility should count for something. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is impolite, but perhaps not incivil. I would assume that he is invoking WP:BRD. If he is reverting your edits, then I would state clearly on the talk page why your version is an improvement and invite whoever reverted to explain why they consider the alternative better. Then give them some time to respond. If they don't justify their revert in a day or so, note on the talk page you are making the edit again then do so. If the revert again, then we have a problem that can be dealt with. If they do justify it and there is no middle ground ,then a WP:3O can be sought. Rockpocket 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The long road then, I just though effectively misleading people might be an issue somehow- I've been discussing everythig fully (or almost fully) and he's saying I'm not. His reverts are over every single edit of mine too - which multiplies the inaccuracy per each of my comments. Hopefully I will get some back-up tomorrow, and my work won't be difficult to retrieve. That Tariq admin took me by surprise (and a bit unprepared) but I'm blowed if I'm going to let this pass by as if no one cares if his decision is revoked or not. Whatever the Irish country article is called, this basic work on Ireland (island) I've been doing is no odds to anyone - it is all just the anomalies that needed at some point to be done. It's never going to go back to what it was, that much is for certain.--Matt Lewis (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've left a message asking him to engage with you, rather than simply reverting. Everyone should be willing to justify their edits, be they reverting or changing, and discuss if challenged. Rockpocket 06:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. People often don't consider that - the reverter has to discuss too (more so, really - AGF dictates that). --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: controversial multi-page move

An RfC on the recent multi-page move has been opened at Talk:Ireland#RfC: controversial multi-page move. -- (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Admin powers (yet again)

Rock, now that Deacon has made wheel-warring acceptable again you might unblock Matt Lewis. He was blocked by Ben Bell for being uncivil to...Ben Bell. Which is against the rules at least as much as wheel-warring. Actually, maybe you might toss in a punitive block of both Deacon and Ben while you are at it. At least, unlike Matt (IMHO), they'd deserve it. Sarah777 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, Matt said far far worse about me in the heat of a dispute. I got over it, rather quickly. But then I didn't have blocking powers, so the feeling of importance that attaches to near unrestrained power doesn't afflict me. I give; but can also take. There should be immediate removal of Admin powers from someone who blocks a person they are in dispute with (look on this as a victim statement!). Seriously, there should - regardless of the 'justification'; a basic principle in civilised society is that you cannot be judge, jury and executioner. If Ben does not lift the block within 12 hours I want him de-frocked. Where do we go to do that? Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Correction Rock, Matt was uncivil to Mick (used the F-word). GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Matt's been unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Matt was upset and said somethings he shouldn't, but once he calms down the risk of him continuing in that vein is limited. Two weeks' block was beyond preventative, I feel, so I'm glad that Ben unblocked him. I also hope Matt reconsiders his resignation after he has had some time to think it over.
However, with regards to Deacon's move: I direct you to my comment two sections above. I tried to resolve this without the need to revert, and someone went out of their way to call my good faith efforts "unhelpful", "sad" and claimed I "undermined" another admin. What I was trying to do was ensure our procedures were followed, and thus make any change stable. Process wasn't important to you then, because the result suited you. But now that it no longer suits you, you are unhappy that rules were not followed? That was what I predicted above and thats what I meant by I told you so.
You don't seem to appreciate, Sarah, that being a fair, neutral admin means being fair and following process whether the outcome is what one, personally, desires or not. I much prefer the solution Tariq invoked, but it simply isn't right to support that decision making process, when there was were significant discussions that were not considered. Adminship is not about enforcing your own preference, it is about interpreting the community's preference in the context of policy.
If you want my help when an outcome suits you, then you should not denigrate my efforts to do exactly the same thing when it doesn't. I don't mind fair criticism, but such bad faith is extremely demoralizing. I said I am done with this and I'm sticking to that. Besides, I am no longer neutral, since I have stated my preference for a Ireland (state) / Ireland (island) solution. The last thing we need is more involved admins taking action. I'll give a statement to ArbCom stating my position, but thats all. Rockpocket 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Rock; the Ireland thing is to me a simple matter of enforcing policy. If !votes are merely !votes then they should only count when they support policy. All the rest is merely obfuscation in support of the indefensible. (Not you, btw). It certainly wasn't my intention to demoralise you (wouldn't have thought that was possible!). Now Rock, I think you are sulking just a wee bit. It isn't like you. Sarah777 (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course I'm sulking! And I shall continue to do so for a while longer ;)
I agree with you to some extent: !votes are only to be counted when the reasoning is supported in policy. Its the different interpretations of policy that is the real issue. It is not as black and white is you suggest, and there are a number of extremely policy aware editors who have made valid arguments for either position. The problem was that Tariq wasn't even aware of many of those arguments when he moved the article, because he hadn't read most of the discussion. That is not an acceptable basis, in policy, for closing, irrespective of whether I think it was the right decision or not. After he read the rest of the discussion and announced that he drew the same conclusion, then I was content. Admittedly, I fail to see the same consensus myself, but that is neither here, nor there.
Deacon contacted me privately about his intention to move the articles back. I never responded, because by the time I saw his email the deed has already been done (one of the problems with being in a different time zone). While I understand his reasoning, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the status quo is default. Part of the issue is that I don't think there is a mechanism for appealing move decisions (like there is for deletions), so what is one supposed to if one thinks a decision should be reversed? Perhaps Deacon would have been better off going to ArbCom directly, rather than revert back and then end up there anyway. Either way, I hope neither of them are censured over this, because I think both of them were attempting to help what is an almighty mess.
Finally, if you haven't already, you will notice that my ArbCom statement is more geared towards behaviour rather than content. This is because there is no way ArbCom will do what some people want them to: tell us where the articles should go. They will not do this because they are not permitted to rule on content. I believe the only way ArbCom can assist here is to help foster an environment where good faith discussion can prosper, and all the diversionary crap is cut out. They could do this by giving teeth to efforts to stop the socking, to ensure that the accusations of bad faith, and the personal attacks are halted, or else those that make them are temporarily excluded.
You will also notice as evidence of this I have included some diffs of yours, among others. This is not because I support action against you, or any one editor (except perhaps those that have been socking). Far from it. What I would support is firm guidelines about what is, and what is not permitted, going forward in these discussions. That, at least, should stop off topic, heated personal exchanges that always seem to hinder discussion. I just wanted to explain that to you, and anyone else whose diff I quoted. Rockpocket 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Rock, I'm considering boycotting the Arbcom referral on grounds of principle. I'm just trying to decide what the principle should be, in time honoured Wiki fashion :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wait until it after get rejected, then you can decide on a principle retrospectively (in time honoured Wiki fashion) ;). Seriously, though, I very much doubt this will be go anywhere, it was presented to them in entirely the wrong way. Rockpocket 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

John A. McDougall

Hello Excirial. I just wanted to let you know that on review I declined the speedy deletion on this article, and edited it down to a stub to address the WP:SPAM issue. I think he is borderline notable in the nutrition world, but if no 3rd party sources are provided soon to establish notability, I may AfD it myself. I'll give the creating editor a few days, though, as they are clearly new to Wikipedia. Rockpocket 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification about this, and nice work cutting the advertising from the article. When i originally evaluated the article it read much like and advertorial in a magazine regarding "an all new method that makes you loose pounds while smiling". Personally i thought that little could be salvaged from the article, as it (Apart from spam) was an obvious COI. Still, your editing somehow managed to make it compliant with the CSD guidelines. Just some third party sources now, and it will be an ok article. Again, thanks for the heads up, and thanks for saving an article from removal, if at least for now :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 09:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at Mooretwin (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Thank you, Rock, for attempting to deal with that editor. I found him to be irrational, hence my decision to simply ignore him and go ahead with editing the article. I will freely admit that I make errors, and that my stubbornness can lead me to make questionable decisions, but, in this case, I believe I am correct. At any rate, thanks again for the attempt. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, his sources simply don't support what he is trying to add, and anything that isn't sourced in these sorts of articles doesn't deserve to be there. If he continues making comments with racial overtones, then I'll start dishing out WP:NPA warnings, otherwise I suggest ignoring his talk page meta-comments. Rockpocket 19:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Nation of Frais

This article has been created 3 times in the last hour or so and deleted twice just waiting on the third deletion could you block the recreation of this article thanks. BigDuncTalk 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it ;) Rockpocket 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
That admin had deleted the article twice today thanks in any way. BigDuncTalk 22:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
He protected it this time, so that'll be the end of that. Rockpocket 22:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Hiya Rock. That's why I can't see a 'merge proposal' passing at Ireland & Republic of Ireland articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the chances, of the republic changing its name to Southern Ireland (in the real world) & thus ending the 'naming disputes on Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably a greater chance of that, than this dispute being resolved in any other way. Rockpocket 23:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves

In a similar vein to Special Category Status, you may be interested in these RMs:

Mooretwin (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I support all of these. Rockpocket 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Rockpocket. Haven't seen you around much lately, so I hope life is treating you well. I trust your journey Down Under earlier this year was enjoyable. Anyway, Happy Holidays and hope to see more of your excellent contribs on the Ref Desk in the New Year. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jack, best of the season to you, too. I have been keeping quite a low wiki-profile recently as I have been really busy in real life. I'm hoping to get a few major things off my plate in the next few months, giving me a little more time to hang out back on the desks.
I did have a extremely enjoyable visit. I loved Kangaroo Island, particularly the remarkably Remarkable Rocks. I also very much enjoyed visiting the lighthouse at Cape Otway, where I spent over an hour chatting to the old lighthouse keeper while a storm brewed outside. Other highlights were walking around the Blue Lake and visiting the Powerhouse Museum and National Gallery of Victoria (I was very impressed with some Australian artists I was previously unfamiliar with, particularly Patricia Piccinini and Jeffrey Smart. And the indigenous Australian art was so interesting - though I left with a sneaking suspicion that the explanations offered, for what the paintings represent, are an elaborate joke on tourists). I also loved the micro-bars in Melbourne, my particular favorite was The Croft Institute.
I was also fascinated by the strange hybrid of British / American popular culture that Australia seems to have, having lived in both those countries, I actually felt very much as home. However, some things I found very idiosyncratic. I found the concept of "mateship" funny. The day after I arrived some poor teenager was killed by a shark. I was astonished to hear the newsreader note, with some meaning, that the deceased was a "great mate"! The other linguistic quirk that thing that amused me was newsreaders talking about people being "bashed". Anywhere else in the world a victim would be "assaulted" or "attacked", but in Australia, its simply "getting bashed"! It occurred to me that Australians have elevated plain speaking to an art form, which is actually quite refreshing when one is used to the political correctness in the US (it also explains some of Mark Latham's quotes). Rockpocket 08:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually come to think of it, Latham's take on civility is strangely relevant to the drama du jour on Wikipedia. Who'd have thought it. Rockpocket 08:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Funny how ML has sunk like a stone since leaving politics. Only 4 years ago, he got creditably close to becoming Prime Minister (marred only by actually showing his true colours, something he himself might have been proud about - in a perverse sort of way), but now his name is not heard from one month to the next. Many would say "good riddance". Yes, mateship. John Howard tried to have a preamble inserted into our Constitution, which would have formally enshrined the value of mateship in Australian society. The voters decided that it's something you don't have a law about, and said NO. Never been to the Powerhouse Museum, but I'll be in Sydney over Christmas so I'll see if we can squeeze it in - I've been hearing about it for decades of course. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

thanks for sending the text... can delete it from my sandbox now. Cahoney1 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family--jeanne (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator & Administrator GoodDay??

Not likely. I've peeked at the 'edit warring' on the RfA page & I'm certain; had I'd been an Arbitrator or Administrator, I'd have been booted out long ago. I think my block finger would've been too heavy. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Special category status

I see the RM was closed while I was banned - doesn't seem very fair. O Fenian failed to provide the primary source, yet it was found in his favour - backed up by Domer48 amd Big Dunc - editors with a history of personal conflict against me. That's Wikipedia. Happy Christmas, anyway. Mooretwin (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. You can always ask the closing editor what their reasoning was for their interpretation of consensus. I don't see that consensus myself, but you win some / you lose some. Rockpocket 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a go, thanks. Mooretwin (talk)
Hi Rock, have you seen this here. --Domer48'fenian' 21:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed it. I've not had a chance to read through and view all the links yet. Rockpocket 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
What is there to see no consensus for the move was reached 4 against the move and 3 for it so simple what can you not see? BigDuncTalk 10:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Now that Aervanath has clarified the position they took on closing the move lets hope this is the end of it. Rock I am surprised/bewildered that you are not aware that if no consensus for a move is reached then it fails. Having said that all the best for the holidays and new year to you and yours. BigDuncTalk 13:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to be surprised or bewildered, Dunc, as I'm very much aware that a lack of consensus for a move means the article stays where it is. However, vote-counting ("4 against the move and 3 for it") isn't how we are asked to judge consensus. I think the evidence provided for moving is sufficiently convincing when compared to that provided for not moving. Aervanath disagrees, and Aervanath was the uninvolved closing admin so it doesn't get moved on this occasion. No big deal. My opinion may differ on his decision, but that doesn't mean to say I don't respect it. Merry Christmas to you also. I hope the Santa brings you lots of goodies ;) Rockpocket 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays