User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 29

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

Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30

propagandists and extremists

Hi, thanks for your level-headed handling of this. I'm going to remove the offending word shortly. Cheers. Zerotalk 02:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

RE: Mercy for Animals

My apologies for making the situation tenser than it needed to be. I hope we can work together on this article. You seem to be the animal rights expert with your edits, which will be very helpful to me because this is just a passing interest. Fellow editor SlimVirgin, who it looks like you are working with, seems really helpful. Thanks again . Ikip (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize; it was somewhat rude of me to template-and-run that way. Normally I would have stuck around to help source an AR article myself, but I needed to run some errands. Still, it looks like SV came to help, so no harm done and we have a nice new article. Thanks for your contribution. Rockpocket 06:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Shankill Butchers

Thank you for your constructuve edit to the above article. I would propose saying, simply, that Mr Murphy's two brothers, one of whom is now deceased, attended his funeral. Is this acceptable? Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2009 [PS: contrary to your user page, you're not set up to receive emails] (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. Its only after I made the edit I realized his brother is also deceased, so BLP doesn't really apply. However, with regards to both Murphys, I am concerned that we are saying they both committed horrific crimes despite the fact they were never charged with them. Most of the these claims come from a single source, which I have no reason to doubt, but it is a single source nonetheless. Even though they are both dead, they will still have living family members, so we still need to be to be careful. When we are saying individuals committed murders, we should have multiple, reliable sources stating so.
Finally, my email is enabled (my preferences say so, and I have received email in the last week). Is yours? For you to send me email, your email preferences needs to be enabled also. Rockpocket 01:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


More provocation?

Rock, see my "user contributions" page. The template at the bottom has been changed and instead of giving summary data and other facts and figures about user contributions it now highlights blocks. Could you please remove it from my "contributions" page? Or else jus remove the links to "Global...blocks". Sarah777 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Strangeness afoot: The two blocks highlighted in pink are for wikimania2008.wikimedia.org and ga.Wiki; I've never been on either of those it was someone else using my "name" apparently and they still get listed on my record! And, no doubt, a quick glance at this will help some Admin decide whether to impose yet another bad block! Sarah777 (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This is madness! I could phone a friend in India and have them imitate you on a host of projects, get blocked and leave a most colorful block record for all to see on your contributions page! Sarah777 (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Response

I have responded to you on my talk page. In short, I disagree with you but you are welcome to unprotect his page and deal with whatever happens as a result. I think the result will be him violating the personal attack policy more and getting a longer block from an uninvolved admin, history tends to repeat itself. Chillum 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pit of despair

Could you please take a look at SlimVirgin's most recent posts at the talk page, and her edit at the page? I think it best that I, personally, step back and not get into a fight, but her comments towards me seem to me to be inappropriate. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that you shouldn't still feel free to go there, of course!, but since I left that message to you above, she posted a lengthy addendum that changes the situation a bit. I'll sleep on it, then reply for myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. For reasons I would rather not go into here, events of this evening have led me to withdraw from all articles related to animal experimentation. It simply isn't worth it, given specific RL considerations that could threaten my livelihood.
As you and I both know, we have never knowingly communicated before beyond a few comments exchanged on a couple of of article talk pages. Nevertheless, I have had a number of emails accusing me of editing with you in a manner that is noncompliant with policy. Something I have, obviously, denied repeatedly. I tell you this here only because, in the event that this complaint is made public, I want it on record, in advance. For your own protection, it might be best if we avoid each other (which shouldn't be too difficult, as I'm in the process of unwatch-listing all the articles in the Ar wikiproject). Rockpocket 08:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just replying here, and then I'm out. Thank you for telling me that. Frankly, my jaw is dropping, and I absolutely confirm that you and I have not been in any contact not visible right here. I think that it is absolutely disgraceful that any good editor such as you should be bullied in this way. I wish you the best of luck, on site and in real life. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the saddest consequences of working on WP, that those who may have the most to offer are frequently hounded out of areas of expertise because the merely passionate have more free time and no real-life consequences to saying or doing almost anything from error-filled writing to stalking. I am sorry to read of your troubles here., Rockpocket. // BL \\ (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for stating that publicly, Tryptofish, and thanks for your support, Bielle. I don't want to leave the impression that I'm being stalked or threatened with outing in this instance, I've been assured that is not the case and am happy to clarify that. Its simply that I have a change (for the better) in professional circumstances, but consequently there is now a greater risk of wiki-drama in this sphere impacting my life in a negative way. Yesterday it was put to me that if I continue to edit "with" Tryptofish a number of things were going to happen. I'd rather those things not happen as they would adversely impact me and/or the quality of AR articles. Yet I don't know how to stop editing "with someone" other than avoid the area of overlap. It therefore seems a good time to draw a line in the sand, negate that risk, and avoid those adverse consequences.
But its no big deal. I'll continue to contribute in other areas and may now get around to getting another article I'm writing in my sandbox to FA status. Rockpocket 01:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I really feel that I need to say a few more things, as it would be irresponsible for me not to do so. First, I'm very happy and relieved that you feel the situation overall is a good one for you. It's great that you are happy with your real life job developments, and it's always good to be reminded that real life is more important than this website (gasp!!!). But, as for this website, I should be able to leave you this message here, and you should be able to edit (or not edit) any pages that you want to edit and can help with (even if I'm editing them too). The project suffers whenever a good editor, and you are a good editor, is bullied into avoiding any page. And from where I stand, it sure sounds like bullying to me. Someone needed to stand up and say that, publicly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, five times as many are . . .

watching you! // BL \\ (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

dear rockpocket. can you protect robina qureshi s page, the vandalism has started again by an anon ip user, i reverted it to your page - thanks ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger3456 (talkcontribs) 19:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion

Hello, there, Rockpocket. I would be interested in following, and perhaps participating, in the discussion you intend to open on the "descent" categories. If you could let me know the venue, I would be obliged. Irvine22 (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. It may take me a day or so to come up with a solid proposal, but I'll be sure to let you know. Rockpocket 05:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Offense

"Why don't we verify that you are a single purpose account whose body of contributions to Wikipedia consists of selectively perpetuating a pathetic, parochial Rangers v. Celtic agenda across a range of articles? Lets also verify that that sort of editor has all the credibility of those fuckwits who spend their time "bantering" with each other on your aforementioned internet forums." That sounded rather offensive to me. Although maybe you only wanted to raise the possibility that I was a "fuckwit"...since if you want to call me one, you might as well get it out in the open. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you spend your time time "bantering" with Old Firm fans on internet fora? Rockpocket 23:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh right, so I might be a "fuckwit" then. I suppose at least you didn't suggest I might also be a "cretinous" Irishman. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct, I didn't. Which shows you can read and comprehend. Well done. Just so we are clear: what I did suggest is that your body of editing demonstrate all the credibility of a someone who spends their time "bantering" with Old Firm fans on an internet forum. Why did I say that (see that is a rhetorical question, you know, they type with an "h")? Because you've shown a complete lack of understanding about what writing for Wikipedia involves. For example, your justification for why we should call Plastic Paddy a pejorative in the article:

OK, let's try to define what we mean. If you are saying something is plastic, then clearly you are saying this is deficient. If you are saying something is deficient, then it's pejorative. [1]

What flawless logic! Now, while that sort of genius reasoning may see off some remedial Rangers fan on an internet forum, it really doesn't cut it for Wikipedia. In fact, we have some policies and guidelines that explicitly address such guff. You can read them at: WP:SYN and WP:OR. Please, please do so. Having read those, if you would like some more light reading on how to become a respected Wikipedian rather than a single purpose edit-warrior, I'd be delighted to direct you to them. However, if your purpose here is to troll others into engaging in sectarian banter with you (and I sincerely hope it is not), then I kindly suggest you find somewhere else to edit, as that is unwelcome on my talk page. Thanks for your understanding. Rockpocket 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway title change

Rockpocket - it appears impossible to return to the old title of Dunmanway Massacre which Sarah777 seems to have changed on 28 October and then had protected in some way. I am not clear on this one not knowing the rules well enough. Is that the case and how would one return to the old title? --Fynire (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any consensus to move to massacre. BigDunc 18:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Sarah moved the article, which precipitated an edit war, so the article was move protected by an administrator. If you believe it should be moved to Dunmanway Massacre then make that suggestion on the talk page with your justification. If there is sufficient support to move it back, myself (or any other administrator) can do so. Rockpocket 19:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Dunmanway_killings#Neutrality_of_lede_disputed for summary of all the sources you'll need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.44.247 (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Can you advise? Vintagekits is at it again. Pursuing me to revert my edits in pusuit of his POV campaign to remove the term "Northern Irish" from WP. Recent edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. I tried AN/I, but my complaint turned into a farce with his mates turning up to cause confusion. Remaining options are (a) edit-war, or (b) allow him to pursue me and impose his will on various articles. Neither of those options are attractive. Mooretwin (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Clearly I'm not the person to be offering advice on how to out-game other editors, my brain just doesn't work that way. I don't know. You try and write an encyclopaedia and you get this sort of crap pulled on you. I guess there is two options, either cut your loses and leave him to it; Or else start putting together a dossier of a pattern of long-term, ongoing disruptive behaviour. Document everything, and after enough time present it all together. To do that with any credibility, though, you will have to ensure that you do not get involved in any of the same behaviour. Rockpocket 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you're begining to see the scale of the problem we have here alright. My advice, for what it's worth, is don't get annoyed and do anything silly. Keep your head and use good solid logic, as you have been doing. Don't get involved in slagging matches with Domer. He wants that. Remember that facts and good sense are on your side. Jdorney (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles-related articles

IMHO, the time is coming when protection of those articles, will be applied first & then discussions will commence. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No. We don't need to protect it, we simply need all editors to stand up and call bullshit on the attempts to promote one POV. Note how Domer is alone is promoting this anti-Hart agenda. Other editors know that this is not neutral writing, and so they will not add it themselves, but neither are they willing to speak out against Domer's editing. Why? Because sadly its considered more important to support the other members of your faction then support a neutral encyclopaedia. Look around and see how many editors will support and criticize editors on both side, depending only on the edit. Very few, and most of them are admins. From the rest, the silence is damning. Rockpocket 22:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Myself & Domer haven't seen 'eye-to-eye' for months. I'm not the bloke to go head-to-head with him. It's not really my style to lock horns with established editors-in-general, for that matter. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: You may have noticed, he & I tend to 'ignore' each other. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Rock, there are many articles where I have been the only editor with the patience to continue to "speak out". It always comes down to a choice: either give up and allow Domer to control the article, or enter into an edit war. Hobson's choice. Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a real problem whereby this 1RR can be manipulated by pairing up editors with a similar agenda. I think this has happened in the past on both sides, but it does appear some current editors have worked out a system to use it to their advantage. Once a restriction becomes a pawn in a game, its application should be questioned. Furthermore when it gets used against those who are not involved in the game, then we have a real problem.
With regards to how to deal with this, I would say its probably worth picking your battles here. I've noticed the who Northern Ireland vs. Northrn Irish issues recently. While I think the campaign to remove all mention of Northern Irish from Wikipedia under the guise that it is "not a nationality" is spurious, I really don't see the problem with using "from Northern Ireland" instead. Both work, so its probably not worth fighting over.
From my own perspective, I made an error in continuing to improve that article when it should have been clear what Domer was playing at. I will not be making that mistake again. Rockpocket 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
At least your posts don't get 'deleted' at his talkpage, like mine did. PS: I got 'some' revenge by 'deleting' one of his at mine. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
When you say you won't be making that mistake again, do you mean you are going to join the long list of people who attempted to confront Domer48, got bored and gave up? That is how he gains control. Mooretwin (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned this is about making sure the article is neutral, nothing more. I hope this incident will have convinced Domer to drop the attempts are promoting a POV on this article. If not, there are other ways to achieve that. Given his edits at Peter Hart and now here in conflict with an outside opinion, I think there is a strong case to get an AE probation if need be.
However, I've no interest in confronting Domer in general. Getting involved in personal battles is counter productive in my experience. If Domer really is a problem editor, then that will become apparent over time, it doesn't need any single editor to stand up to him. Once this article is balanced and neutral, then I've done my job, and I'd much rather do that with the input of all editors, rather than restricting anyone. Rockpocket 00:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Now you're talking (err posting), be calm & cool. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR

Your actions are noted here. --Domer48'fenian' 21:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hart

Wowsers, a fellow Canuck & I've never heard of him 'til yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What are the BLP violations that Domer committed? BigDunc 19:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean recently, or in all his attempts to add attack material to that article? Rockpocket 20:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Would you like to refactor this edit into the section above? I don't think it really needs to go there, but since BigDunc has a problem with it...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it shouldn't be removed Sarak, the section is ...to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. He is far from uninvolved being the one who the request was about. BigDunc 19:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, not a problem. Rockpocket 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Meda Ryan's reliability as a source

Just for talk, as this counts as Original Research I'd imagine, but this is something I've encountered along the way re Meda Ryan's reliability as a source. It refers to an incident in Dublin during the Irish Civil War in November 1922, The Anti-Treaty side attacked Wellington Barracks (now Griffith Barracks), garrisoned by Pro-Treaty (or Free State) troops. Note that Ryan identifies with the Anti-Treaty (or Republican) side.

Ryan in Tom Barry, p185. "Often atrocities far more severe than those in the Tan War were taking place. In Dublin on 8 November, for instance, a group of men were parading when machine gun fire, from government [Free State] forces, was opened up on them from across the Grand Canal resulting in 20 deaths. Four soldiers dragged James Spain from a house and shot him five times."

I went looking for this incident as part of research into the Civil War. Turns out the contemporary sources don't exactly agree.

New York Times, November 9, 1922 [2], gives a very different story. In fact the Anti-Treaty side attacked the Free State troops, who were parading in Wellington barracks, killing one, badly wounding 17 and also killing two civilians, while losing two killed themselves. Basically what happened was the opposite of what Ryan wrote.

So maybe the NYT got it wrong. I got a 24 hour subscription to the Irish Times online archive to check (don't worry, this wasn't for WP). Same story. I can't give you a link because it's a pay site, but, "Surprise attack on Dublin Barracks", Last Wednesday an attack was made with Thompson and Lewis guns and rifles on over 100 national troops on the parade ground at Wellington Barracks, killing one man and wounding 17. One civilian was killed and there were several wounded". At leas Ryan has the James Spain info right. Turns out he was a republican, injured in the leg during the attack and pulled out of a nearby house two hours afterwards and shot dead as a reprisal by Free State troops. (Irish Times Saturday, Nov 18, 1922).

The point of this grisly little tale is that Meda Ryan is not tremendously reliable for factual stuff. The only detail she got right was about James Spain. Why did she get this right? Maybe because he was on the side she favoured? Anyway, I don't intend introducing this into any articles because it is OR. But it's something to be aware of when you are told about Meda Ryan's impeccable attention to detail. Jdorney (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Roll back

i don't know about you, but I hate that button being on my watchlist. [3]--Tznkai (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it, the combination of my fat fingers and an iPhone is particularly problematic. God knows how Alison manages it with her infamously hammy fists. Thanks for intervening, that could have gotten messy, considering the circumstances. Rockpocket 03:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Banning editors

I still believe that 'only' vandalizers & repeat sockers, should be banned. I was informed that my 'vote' at Vk's current 'case', might be declared invalid & ignored. If so? that's the community's choice. I'm but a grain of sand, on the shores of Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Repeat sockers", you say? Does 17 that we know of (not counting meatpuppets) count as "repeat"? Rockpocket 18:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I need evidence of socking since the last time a indef-ban on Vk, was called. I had no contact with him before that time (to my knowledge). If socks have been used since then? my 'vote' will change. If ya don't believe me? check out the Wikipiere case. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So as long as his socking doesn't effect you, personally its ok? How very community spirited. Rockpocket 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I shall delete my oppose vote at the Indef Ban, due to the past socking. But, I won't add a support vote for the current Indef Ban request. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
You are free to make whatever decision you like, GoodDay. However, informed decisions attract much more respect than ill-informed ones. Rockpocket 19:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll remain neutral for this Indef Case of Vk. If I recall, I opposed his banning, in the last Case. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Ya got me there, with the sock-pupperty stuff. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility Probation is an idea: See my page for elaboration. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed my mind (again). Opposing the indef ban & supporting Mentorship. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Long discussion

That ANI thread is getting much too long. I agree with your remark here. My feeling on VK is that if Less, an experienced admin who doesn't tolerate nonsense, wants to give it one last try, it does not cost the community much to permit that. I trust Less to handle whatever comes up. It may be the case that this route is the most expedient. If we give it a try and VK breaks the conditions, he'll be reblocked without any sort of fuss, and that will be it. Jehochman Talk 21:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, and I have got way too wrapped up in commenting there. I'm withdrawing from further comment henceforth. Let me just leave you with an idea of why I am so pro-ban this time.
I do appreciate your reasoning and (despite the inevitable naming of me as the leader of the anti-Vk conspiracy, when he eventually makes his statement) my natural impulse to think that one more chance can't hurt. However, I saw what happened last time this very same proposal was put forward. Giano came to me and proposed these strict terms that, if broken even once would result in him being reblocked without any fuss. I have emails from both Giano and Vk stating quite clearly he was done with the Troubles and all that hassle that riled him into personal attacks, he just wanted to be left alone to edit boxing article only and, if given one last chance he would prove it to us and never go near The Troubles again. if not, he would be gone. No hassle, no objections from Vk or Giano. I got onboard and put my efforts into convincing the community to unblock him on those terms. "If Rockpocket is willing to endorse this then everyone else should". That was my job, and I accepted it in good faith on the understanding that we get all the positives of Vk with no risk of the negatives. No harm could be done, I was promised, and we all agreed that was his ironclad, no quibble very last chance.
So what actually happened: Vk broke the terms, of course, was blocked and then with lots of campaigning from the same people who agreed it was supposed to be his very last chance, he was unblocked. He then lawyered over every single term until they expired and then immediately went back to the exactly the same problematic editing as before. When I protested, I was suddenly the guy who always had it in for Vk and thus must be ignored. Eventually, another 5 blocks down the line, we find ourselves in exactly the same situation and exactly the same people are going to make exactly the same false promises they did before. You may well have the intention of blocking should there be further transgressions, but the moment you do you will be counted among the biased Anti-Irish brigade (cf. his last mentor, SirFozzie) and thus the lawyering and campaigning will start again. And we will all be back having this discussion again around block 40, except there will be a few more admins in the Anti-Irish cabal for his supporters to demonize.
So, I'm sorry. I understand you are acting in good faith, but I cannot - in equally good faith - support your efforts when I already know the script. If you get consensus for this, then good luck. And please forgive me when I can't resist an I told you so later. Rockpocket 21:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Oof. Maybe it's time to go close that thread. There's no sign of a consensus to unblock. Perhaps we just declare a community ban and let VK appeal to ArbCom if they wish. Jehochman Talk 21:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The block was bad. And there is no consensus to maintain it. Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
For what it is worth, here is what I think should happen. We should close that thread, indef block him for persistent behaviour inconsistent with community norms. We should not ban him. If he creates another account and goes about editing boxing articles quietly and uncontroversially, then good luck to him. Part of Vk's problem is his history, get rid of that and some (but not all) of the problems may be avoided. If he edits according to community norms, there is no reason he shouldn't continue undetected for good. Even if an admin spots the account, we should not block him on sight unless he is doing something block worthy. But if he gets involved in anything controversial then he will inevitably get caught and indef blocked. Repeat until he becomes conditioned to what is acceptable, or gives up and finds something else to do. Ultimately this gives him the opportunity to contribute, should he choose to, but absolutely requires he cut out the crap. Rockpocket 22:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
An indef-ban would thus effectively work as a probation. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
That is how indef block essentially works in practice. In reality, I would be amazed if Vk could do that (if he could, why not do so sometime between block #1 and #31?) but the opportunity would be there. There isn't really any way of stopping it, and I don't imagine there would be much appetite for admins hunting for alternative accounts. So if he really wanted to contribute and avoid all the hassle, that would be the way to do so. In fact, that was exactly what I did when I had enough of all the crap thrown may wy by Giano's harpies, I created a different account and edited in a complete different sphere for a while. Very therapeutic it was too. Rockpocket 22:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, seeing as the indef-block won't be repealed? the next move is (in effect) Vk's. PS: I've little tolerance for 'sock-puppetry'. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm pleased to hear that, GD. Your firm and resolute stance apropos Vk's history of sock-puppetry will certainly send that message. Rockpocket 23:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Just one question; What does apropos mean. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Apropos: meaning regarding or concerning. I would have thought a Canadian, such as yourself, would be familiar with the French, à propos. Rockpocket 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm an English-speaking Canuck. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with your suggested resolution. The VK identity is severely tarnished. Anywhere he pops up, his reputation will get him into trouble very rapidly. It may be most effective if you propose to close the thread with indef block in place, no community ban, freedom to start a new account sub rosa, as long as it does not resume any of the prior disruptive activities, and it should stay far away from The Troubles, lest it be discovered and blocked. Maybe we can get a checkuser to confirm that this is an acceptable path forward. Jehochman Talk 02:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Mmmmm. Looks like I missed that boat. Well, perhaps GoodDay, who has a good relationship with Vk, could draw his attention to this potential resolution. It doesn't look like the closing admin endorsed a community ban, so it still could work. Rockpocket 18:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That's certainly workable, I've asked Vk to take a peek. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Vintagekits is blocked. Creating a new account would be block evasion. If VK wants to return to editing he needs to appeal to the ArbCom.   Will Beback  talk  18:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I agree with Will. --John (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Creating & using a sock-puppet is certainly a risk. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but for all anyone knows I had a previous account that was indef blocked. I could have created a new one and set off in a productive wiki-career and no-one would be any the wiser. My point is simply that Wikipedia is a huge place and there is much work to be done. If an indef blocked editor really wants to reform, leave their past problems behind and do good work elsewhere according to community norms, there is a very little, in practical terms, stopping them. I'm not suggesting we propose a formal framework for Vk to edit again, I'm just stating the reality. That said, the reality is also that an editor blocked 31 probably has no real interest in productive editing, and the whole point is to antagonize. The only reason I bring this up is to counter the inevitable appeal that, if Vk is unblocked, he will avoid all drama and edit quietly and constructively. I say there is nothing really stopping him doing that anyway. Rockpocket 19:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Vk's got 2 options before him. As I've mentioned before, 'tis now up to him. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rock, I had a thought while reading through VK's troubles on ANI. A lot of attention gets paid to the fairly small number of editors with problems keeping their cool on British-Irish articles (or are out to push particular views). Little attention gets paid to editors that can keep their cool and can work together. My though was on how to at once raise the profile of cooler heads and to put a squeeze on behavior we would like to see an end of. What I thought of was a kind of voluntary code or set of principles that cool headed editors could (naturally) adhere to and which could form a pocket of opinion around which others could be drawn into.

A top-of-the-head writing of such a code is in my second sandbox. The idea is that cool headed editors could sign their names to something like this and follow it as a code of conduct. Signatories could display a button or userbox on their user page to indicate their support for the principles. With enough signatories, momentum could be shifted onto behavior we want to encourage and an "abnormalising" effect given to behavior we want to discourage.

Or maybe I'm being naive. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid. This is an interesting suggestion. I'd like to think it over a little more before replying at length, but I think I agree with the general premise. The question is how to implement in such as way that it unites the cool headed editors to sufficiently nullify the disruption of the minority. I think to do that we need people willing to actively speak out against all poor behaviour, rather than only speak out against poor behaviour from someone with a different POV. I'll expand on this when I can think of the right words. Rockpocket 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles Arbitration Case: Amendment for discretionary sanctions

As a party in The Troubles arbitration case I am notifying you that an amendment request has been posted here.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IP range 166.205.xxx.xxx

Howdy Rock. Wowsers, I've been on Wikipedia for over 4yrs & to my recollection, have never been annoyed to the point I am with that anon harrasser. I actually wish I could meet the coward & punch him out. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoax references

Rock, a message re hoaxing and vandalism on my talkpage. I presume reverting obvious vandalism supported by dud 'references' on non-controversial articles is "safe"? (I do it all the time myself and nobody ever said anything). But I'm double-checking to be sure; I'd hate to get an editor blocked who is simply acting on my advice. Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Hi, just to let you know this hoax reference on Ikkyū was reposted (my edit reverted) on by another ip from ALLEGHENY COLLEGE PA. Its been posted onto multiple social netrworking sites in an attempt to make it viral. Ive deleted it again. Cathar11 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ardcroney HELP!

I double moved this from the correct spelling, ARDCRONEY, to the current location, ARDCONRY. Could you move it back????? Sarah777 (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it back for you. Rockpocket 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

USC

Your help would be appreciated in onoging clean up and de-pov work here at Ulster Special Constabulary. Jdorney (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jdorney. I'm kind of snowed under at work currently, which is severely restricting my Wikipedia time. I'll have a look when I clear my desk, but it could take a while. If there is a serious problem that needs addressed acutely, it might be worth taking it to the appropriate noticeboard. Rockpocket 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I can understand that. I think you're aware of the issues that are going to turn up here. Regards. Jdorney (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ballintemple - further HELP!

Tried to move this to "Ballintemple, Cork" (there are other Ballintemples in Ireland) only to find it already was there 2 years ago and some dolt moved it. Could you move it back? Whenever an urban suburb is named we use the style "Milltown, Dublin" or "Blackrock, Cork".Sarah777 (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Ireland, suggests it should be at "Ballintemple, County Cork" and the example you use, "Blackrock, Cork" actually redirects to "Blackrock, County Cork" also. Shall I move it there instead, or is there a reason we should skip the "County"? Rockpocket 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In relation to suburbs of the the main cities we use "Placename, City" rather than "Placename, County X". (See Dundrum, Dublin, Irishtown, Dublin, Dundrum, Dublin etc.) Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I've done that. You should probably create an disambig at Ballintemple over the redirect listing the different villages. Rockpocket 01:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

National Graves Association Belfast

Please discuss on talk page before such a radical editCathar11 (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Errr, I did. [4] Rockpocket 01:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit. You commented during the edit while I was posting here.Consensus building???Cathar11 (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
And I reverted back. We do not work on a veto system here. Mil 09 if perfectly capable of discussing the article content if he or she wishes, we do not need to wait for her or him before making improvements that are both consistent with, and justified in, policy. You may also note that I am the only person who has (currently) posted on the talk page, so there is not much of an ongoing consensus-building process up until now. So why is it suddenly an issue?
I appreciate you have been involved in controversial articles, that tend to involve a lot of talk page discussion before any major edits are made. This is not typical of Wikipedia. The vast majority of articles are boldly written and re-written by editors who know our policies and guidelines about content and style. This is often required, especially when the article is created by new editors who tend to be vested in the subject and unfamiliar with our policies. If Mil 09 has an issues with my interpretation of the policies I cited, he or she can make their counter argument and we can discuss it and get more opinions. If the consensus is to include this material then it can easily by pulled out of the history (though it would need to be reliably sourced first). Consensus building is a great tool when required, but Wikipedia would be crippled if every single copy edit demanded extensive discussions in advance. Be Bold! Rockpocket 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you posted this comment on the NGA website National pahe quote"Hello Mil 09. Ok, I was not aware that the two groups were entirely separate. Perhaps it might be worth mentioning this in the articles themselves, giving the obvious similarities. I'll remove the merge proposal. However, I do have a number of concerns about establishing notability, the reliability of the sources and general content of the article. However, I'll mention those on the article's talk page. Rockpocket 21:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)" Did you do this before your solo run?Cathar11 (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I explained, on the talk page, the reason why I was removing the obits before I did so. The other stuff was mainly WP:MOS and copy-editing for comprehension. Do you expect those to be discussed in advance too? I'll ask again: do you have an issue with the actual product or is this all about some process on communal editing you think we should all be adhering to? Rockpocket 02:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not looking to argue. I do have an issue with the details being removed but I'm not an expert in that area. I was just reminding you of what you had previously said. Any editor is free to edit. Removing the fact that one of the graves was a fenian grave I thought was strange. I'm aware of 1RR so I discussed here before reverting. You explained, on the talk page, the reason why you were removing the obits while you were removing them and not before. You alerted on anotherpage that you had concerns about establishing notability, the reliability of the sources and general content of the article but would discuss them on the talk page. Retroactive discussion isnt discussion but post ipso justification. I know you are a helpful and respected admin/editor and I expected more from you. Cathar11 (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering many editors don't bother justifying their edits on the talk page at all, I find your concern with my actions somewhat puzzling. Here is what happened: I was copy editing the article, noticed the extraneous, poorly sourced content about non-notable dead individuals. I immediately went to the talk page to explain what I was going to do and why. I posted there and went back to the article and did it. A careful survey of the time stamps will confirm my justification was posted prior to the edit in question. Which makes your accusation of "post ipso justification" just plain, factually wrong. In contrast, you noted here that you had reverted 5 minutes after doing so, I don't really think you are in a position to chastise me for engaging in retroactive discussion.
I honestly don't know how you choose to edit, but unless an edit is controversial or in a highly visible article we, as editors, are not asked nor expected to discuss in advance everything we do. So long as it is justified in policy we just go ahead and do it. If there is a problem with the edit, WP:BRD can come into play. But BRD requires the reverting editor to actually have an issue with the content of the edit. You should not be reverting on principle just because someone made, in your opinion, a "radical edit".
I didn't remove "the fact that one of the graves was a fenian grave." What I removed was "...the first Belfast martyr of the Fenian period, William Harbinson...". Why? Because a "martyr" is someone who died for refusing to renounce a belief, usually religious. Was Harbinson therefore really a "martyr"? I very much doubt it. So, was there reliable source supporting it? No. So what I consider "strange" is that anyone would consider that as acceptable content in a neutral encyclopaedia. Rockpocket 03:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
And while I'm on the subject, it turns out almost all that article is cut and pasted from other copyrighted sources. So I'll be deleting it all if it is not resolved in the next day or so. Rockpocket 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
ok,ok I dont like the term martyr either. That he was a fenian was notable though. Anywayits late. thanks for taking the time to try and explain. I didnt explain myself well in the revert. I thought that it radically altered the article. I reverted hoping for a discussion on it. I dont normally edit nor particularily wish to get involved in troubles articles. I do observe some of the discussions though. My apologies if I assumed the same would apply here. I will discuss further on the talk page if one emerges. Goodnight its late. Tnx for your time and patience.Cathar11 (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Rock, per Elonka - this article now clearly becomes a "troubles related" article and thus all edits are potentially controversial. Best discuss all changes on the talkpage. For example "martyr" was commonly used to describe patriots executed by the British during the 1800s.

from ROLL OF HONOUR (the Hunger Strikers)
  • "Through the war torn streets of Ulster the black flags did sadly sway
  • To salute ten Irish martyrs the bravest of the brave,
  • Joe McDonnell, Martin Hurson, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty
  • They gave their lives for freedom with Thomas McElwee.
  • Michael Devine from Derry you were the last to die
  • With your nine brave companions with the martyred dead you lie
  • Your souls cry out "Remember, our deaths were not in vain.
  • Fight on and make our homeland a nation once again !"

Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is somewhat redundant, seeing as it is a blatant copyvio, but I don't dispute certain demographics commonly use(d) "martyr" to describe them. I simply dispute Wikipedia should use "martyr" to describe him without attribution. Simply because he was not a "martyr" in the actual meaning of the term. Its like "hero", lots people are commonly called a "hero", how many of these are demigods or the protagonist of a story? Rockpocket 23:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose from a certain perspective this could be looked on as a blatant copyright violation. But it is a mere sample - Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
A little more than a sample. Before I copy edited it large swathes of the article, including that entire section, was a word-for-word copy. If you look carefully at the stuff that isn't lifted from that pamphlet, it is a word-for-word copy of the text in An Phoblacht. Almost the entire article is a blatant copyright violation, the only material that isn't is the stuff that I re-wrote. Rockpocket 01:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Communication SNAFU Rock - I thought you were talking about the lyric I lifted from some random google! Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, my apologies, I see what you meant now. Rockpocket 05:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The World and Wikipedia

My copy of Dalby's book arrived in today's post and there you are, a whole paragraph, on page 195. If you haven't seen the quote, let me know and I will type it out for you. Bielle (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This was the first I heard of the book, much less the fact I'm quoted in it. Is it any good? I would be interested to know which of my pearls of wisdom was deemed profound enough to include. Actually, this is not the first time I have featured in print. I'm a "character" in another book called, somewhat embarrassingly, Roots of Desire: The Myth, Meaning and Sexual Power of Red Hair. Though I should stress, I'm mentioned in a professional capacity, not because I have red hair or the sexual power that apparently accompanies it! Rockpocket 05:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a reasonable book, very readable and easy to follow. I went through it mostly looking for who has been quoted saying what. The fact that I know, or know of, most of the characters was helpful. It is not a discourse in great depth of the matters that consume Wikipedians. For example, Dalby touches on the Israeli-Palestine conflict on WP in aligning himself with Zeq, a now banned user, whose loss he bemoans as a moderating influence and a counter to the "pro-Palestine Electronic Intifada". Otherwise, the whole area is but part of a list of problems that have arisen. The book’s focus is clear in its subtitle "How We Are Editing Reality", thus much of what makes the most drama on WP doesn't get a mention: nothing on Ireland that I could see, or any behaviours that do not affect "facts". The WP text that has appeared elsewhere, especially text in error (deliberate or otherwise), is the basis for most of the discussion. It is a gentle book w.r.t. Wikipedians, but, if this helps, I am glad I bought it. I will send the quote about you in an email later today. It's too long to type here. As for being quoted in a book, my own experience is only in a journalist’s “how not to” text about women and their extra-marital affaires - something about a railway underpass, as I recall, or perhaps it was the university parking-lot story; it was a long time ago, at any rate. Bielle (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
How intriguing! I must ask, was the text about how not to have extra-marital affairs, or how not to get caught having them? Rockpocket 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Neither, I think. I have the book around somewhere. It was about the nature of such affaires and why they happened, all from the perspective of the women involved. It was several lifetimes ago, about different people and perspectives. Bielle (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and as promised, you have mail! Bielle (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi

You might keep an eye on this fellow (Admin). He seems a bit block-happy and I fear he doesn't like me very much:) I want to be around long enough to take an ANI case re his unsuitability to be around nationalism-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I feel Moreschi's experience investigating nationalist disputes has resulted in him seeing more conspiracies than even you do, Sarah! I really didn't like the way that thread was shaping up. Tolerance for "nationalist" editors is at an all time low. I would counsel to you tread carefully if it wasn't for the fact that even when doing nothing wrong, it appears you can find yourself being discussed at ANI. Rockpocket 06:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong? I don't have to be doing anything at all to get them waffling incoherently about me! Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course when I say them I mean a few of "them", not all of "them". Lest "they" think I'm being WP:UNCIVIL . Which, as you know, I'd never be. Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nipping trouble in the bud....

At Ring, County Waterford;

  • (cur) (prev) 20:45, 29 November 2009 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (2,800 bytes) (Undid revision 328597084 by Angr (talk)) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 16:37, 29 November 2009 Angr (talk | contribs) (2,737 bytes) (If the article is called "...in the Republic of Ireland", then that's what we call it. Do not use piping to push your POV.) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 13:32, 29 November 2009 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (2,800 bytes) (pl do not revert RoI piping) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 10:24, 29 November 2009 Angr (talk | contribs) m (2,737 bytes) (→See also: rm unnecessary piping) (undo)
Trainee Sysop: just say "Meh"

Please note that User:Angr changed a long-term stable version (same as the standard used on all Irish town/village articles). If he persists with this it could spread to literally thousands of articles and reopen the "Ireland naming dispute". Sarah777 (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've drawn his attention to the potential implications and invited him to discuss it at the collaboration page if he thinks there is some reason this particular link should not be pipelinked. Rockpocket 06:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah Rock - you really laid it on the line; explaining the context of changing the current standard practice etc. in a "troubles related" area. Sarah777 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is the general (if written) standard practice is to pipe whenever possible except when disambiguation between the island and the state is an issue. If he thinks that disambiguation is an issue in this instance, then it should probably be discussed rather than edit-warred over. If that doesn't work for you, then you can always try someone else. Rockpocket 23:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't be so defensive Rock - you need more agression - did you miss out on the Sysop Training Course? Meh? Sarah777 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've not really been following the naming debate recently, so I could well be missing something important. I don't consider it defensive to point out my reasoning and note that if you think another admin has a superior understanding of an issue, then you should ask them for their help. Rockpocket 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC

Advice Sought

A new user User:Alb28(sockpuppet?) has created 3 new articles and injected similar information into other articles with very dubious content about BLP Marcelo Chimirri David Romero Ellner and Financial irregularities during the Manuel Zelaya administration. Could you look quickly at them and advise what should be done. speedy deletion?? advice would be much appreciated. Cathar11 (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Posted to BLP and it is now at AN/I so Im ok for now. sorry to bother you.Cathar11 (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

I have made a proposal to establish a WikiProject for British-Irish Collaboration. A number of proposals are currently being made around initiates to improve collaboration between British and Irish editors on topics of mutual interest. A number of initiates have been adapted in the past, with varying degrees of success, but all positive in their intent to resolve these issues. A centralised WikiProject for British-Irish collaboration could act as a focus for initiatives to improve collaboration on these topics.

As an editor that has recently taken part in discussions around initiates like these, please comment on the proposal to establish a WikiProject for this purpose. Please also circulate this notice to other editors you feel may be interested. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

I have volunteered you for a task at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_remedies because you are uninvolved. Kittybrewster 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You caught me at just the right time, just back from a Christmas break in Canada. I'm happy to help and, once the discussion there runs its course, I'll put something together. Rockpocket 21:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I was gonna put something together for this, but I thought better of it. I'll defer to you to do it, if you still can. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. The sooner the better. Concensus unanimous. Kittybrewster 10:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Coffee closed with a resonable summary, I tightened up what I consider to be a few potential loopholes: User:Levineps/terms. If Coffee and Levineps are content with this, I'll transclude later today. Rockpocket 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)