User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 12

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Bill 0'Reilly and Kool Aid

You call him, E-mail him, disagree with him, he will say that YOU drink Kool Aid, worse. 205.240.144.220 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure he would. But then again, I'd rather take a Kool-Aid assisted exit than participate in Mr O'Reilly's propaganda. Rockpocket 05:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The perverse spin

Hi, Rockpocket. I see you have unblocked the Artist Formerly Known as Loomis. That's fine: I'm sure you had very good reasons for doing so. I trust his resolve to avoid personal attacks will extend to not twisting and misinterpreting my words out of context? You have no need to answer. I would simply ask you to be alert to this possibility. Regards. Clio the Muse 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You have email, Clio. Rockpocket 18:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So do you, Rockpocket! Anyway, message received and understood. From Hecate, yet another of the many faces of Clio the Muse 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of electroconvulsive therapy controversy article

Hi Rockpocket You asked why I wanted the electroconvulsive therapy controversy article deleted. It was moved without asking me and I don't think it works very well as a standalone article in its current state and I am not prepared to work on it while Scuro throws POV tags at me (We are waiting for mediation at the electroconvulsive therapy article) I might write one later. Also I think the electroconvulsive therapy article actually needs a controversy section, but I appreciate what you said about moving not necessarily being marginalising. Regards, Staug73 17:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Staug. Thanks for letting me know. I would just note two things. Firstly that content gets move around all the time without consulting the person that wrote it, thats how the wiki works. Having said that, it would probably have been a good idea to discuss the issue on the talkpage so everyone could have their say before it was moved. Secondly, there is actually precendent for this. There was a long and bitter debate on whether the should be a controversy section in the biological psychiatry article. This went all the way to ArbCom. The decision was that there was a few lines of describing the controversy in the main article, with a link to the sub-article: Biopsychiatry controversy. So, based on that decision, I would think that if it is to be expanded beyond a paragraph, it should probably be in its own article. Its your choice, of course, but the information seems good to me, so I would have thought it was better to exist in a linked subarticle, rather than not exist at all. Thank again for your reply. Rockpocket 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

could it be?

I have no idea what he was refering to.100110100 02:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

In case you didn't know someone was vandalizing your user page but I got the problem solveArnon Chaffin 17:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anytime Arnon Chaffin 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

MY oops

Sorry about that but next time I'll be using the edit summary. 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S I'll watch after your user page(as I do most Amins) :) Have a Great day!

Sure, no harm done. Thanks again for keeping an eye on my page, and you have a great day also! Rockpocket 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Insert Less Lame Title for My Whining about Talk Page Dispute Here

I have the right to liberally delete my talk page as long as I do not make someone's point seem different than what it was.

Thus, you have disrespected my talk page. Furthermore, I have the right to remove my words when I chose to remove them. That has always been Wiki policy. I did not delete any of his words in his space. If he wants to summarize my point or the argument via refactoring, that is his right. However, I will not allow it on my page and I will not allow my words to stay on his page in their entirety. That is my right. If you do not accept that, I will have to bring this up for dispute, because I believe your actions are jeopardizing one of my basic rights at Wikipedia. He has a history if he wants people to know what I said in the past, and that is why histories are not editable out. Thanks. SanchiTachi 00:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I had to correct some things so I don't come off as too much of a dick. The title is refering to my deleting of posts over at user:Localzuk's talk page. I just want to defend my right to end disputes according to the Wiki ettiquette rule. Striking is only something useful for on going debates, to show what one opinion has changed. However, if my words were personal attacks as he claimed, then I definately have the right to remove them completely (as personal attacks could be deleted by others, its debatable, there is no debate against deleting own). I hope you can understand my view point and why I fiercely defend it. SanchiTachi 01:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You can post things here or respond to things here if you want. Regardless, you don't need to be in a Democracy to have rights. Rights are those which you have when you can defend them. But at no time have I seen any rule that someone else is allowed to keep against the will of another posts, but I have seen presidence in which people are allowed to remove posts. As I said above, he can always refactor, by putting in a summary of my posts and put the date which they are. I just feel that there is no need to have it on his talk page, as the conversation is done and it contributes nothing. But yeah, there is always the great Wiki rule of all, the Screw It Rule. What matters most is that order and contributions are the first priority, and that rules are the last. Keeping so called personal attacks against the will of the person making it in a non-Administrator based page, debate page, etc, etc (those pages that are archived and discussion matters), would go against the spirit of Wiki. If he wants to put a link up to his history, he could. If he wants to refact, he can. But there is no point to have the whole thing up on his current Talk Page.

Also, the spirit of the rule keeping me from editing/changing what other people say to manipulate their words also protects me from having my words put up in such a manner, because they are already logged and appropriate kept measures are already in place. SanchiTachi 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the community would feel about this particular issue, though my guess is that they would see the whole thing as somewhat dickish and tell you both to move on. Thats what I plan to do, I propose you do the same. Rockpocket 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I know its dickish, thats why I edited it out to begin with. Also, the 3R rule does not apply to editing out my own text, which I made sure that I edited out only what I put in. So what I would effectively be doing is forcing him into that. It all came from a dispute over if the Oxford English Dictionary was right to say that only "ize" was proper British spelling, or would common spoken British override it. That discussion was at Black Templars and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000‎. I cleaned it up and moved most of the discussion into the Talk Page and archived in the subpage. I would recommend it for Lamest Edit War. SanchiTachi 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha. I like the title. Funny how small things escalate into big things and, before you know it, you find yourself acting like a bit of a tool. It happens to me occasionally too. I usually take a wikibreak for a day or two to regain some perspective. Rockpocket 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

But if it weren't for tools, no machines would ever get fixed, no buildings ever built, etc. But yeah, see my note about the 3R rule, just to show that the original deleting of a post is not a revert (the additional ones are), just to try and deal with that "shit, I said something but maybe I shouldn't have" concept. Excuse the cussing, but I felt that it was necessary cussing (in the spirit of here or in the FCC allowing occassional cussing). Remember, a delete of a post means that I am either conceding a point (minor interpretation) or admitting that I am wrong (major interpretation). So he should feel glad that I would withdraw in such a way. He did win, after all. SanchiTachi 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the first deletion, I only meant the additional ones. I also agree that he should be glad you withdrew it, and him putting it back is even more dickish. All the more reason for you to walk away. Anyway, it none of my business really, I just thought I could try to be a voice of reason before some slightly more block-happy admin took an interest. I'll let you get back to your editing. Rockpocket 02:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I like talking to Admin, so don't worry. I use to be a member over a year ago, but I went to grad school and lost my username/password combo. Since Sanchi is a name I commonly go by, I didn't feel it was necessary to fight for it or track it down. But anyway, the point is that I use to talk to admin about all sorts of issues like the above before. They are, after all, just Wiki users with big sticks, so it is always good to involve them. They also keep people from becoming those gawd awful Mastodons that just rampage all over. I think the appropriate thing for an admin to do is label it with a reference to this. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Nobody_cares , which seems to be the most appropriate way to deal with a sprawl brawl over whether organization is spelt with a "z" or an "s." SanchiTachi 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WWJD

Words fail me, Rockpocket! Nevertheless, let me say this - I am nobody's way, truth or light but my own, and I'm not even sure about that. It is nice to be well regarded, but this analogy is surely pushing the envelope way beyond its breaking point. :)

I am, seriously, very uncomfortable with anything that smacks of putting people on pedestals, even in good-natured jest, no less than I am of one editor dismissing another forever because of past disagreements that have led to their future contributions being adjudged worthless, sight unseen. To me, these are just 2 sides of the same coin. If I go on, I'll probably write 20 pages, and I'm sure you don't want that. But one day, one day ... I know there's a book inside of me that's been hankering to come out into the light. Maybe I'll publish my thoughts on "How to Solve the Problems of the World" on my user page, and if it gets enough feedback, I'll do a much-expanded print version and charge $1,000 a copy. See, this is going somewhere useful after all. :)

(Btw, I see we have a very new user called The way, the truth, and the light, and he/she is in all sorts of trouble already). JackofOz 00:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. As for bearing the burden, the "last chap" is, I'm told, in a place that I can only dream of getting to in my wildest and most outlandish fantasies. (The sort of place I sometimes metaphorically wish I were in when we get bogged down in Wiki-disputes about personalities rather than about whatever the issue is.) JackofOz 00:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, Rockpocket. I felt highly complimented; just somewhat too highly for my comfort level. No, I'd have no objections to your "assay", as long as it contains only golden words and no detritus. And if I have the absolute right to alter it if I feel my views are being misrepresented. Now you've got me all fascinated; I can't wait to see what you write. :) JackofOz 01:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You have an interesting Friday night ahead of you. Enjoy your weekend. :) JackofOz 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:JACK:

Sir, I'm utterly gobsmacked at your fine words. I thank you for the enormous compliment you've paid me.

I'd like a day or so to think about it before giving you my considered feedback. All I will say at this stage is that if I were to permit it to remain, I can't quite see how that would sit comfortably with my discomfort about putting people - particularly myself - up on some kind of pedestal. Is there any precedent for this kind of thing on Wikipedia? I find it impossible to believe I'm the first Wikipedian that others seem to think so well of. Another very real concern is that I might find myself reading it at least once a day, but for the wrong reasons - and that would be a very bad thing.

I must log off now, so I'll leave it at that for now. Cheers -- JackofOz 06:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket. Having slept on it, I’m in a better position to comment further on this.

I’m not sure that having my photo on the page adds any value. Some may find it very off-putting indeed, something I can relate to every morning when I look in the mirror. :) But also, I think it adds a further level of unnecessary personalisation. If you’re saying that I’m only one example of WP:JACK – something I entirely agree with - then I think it’s best to leave it at that. The photo of only one member of this group of like-minded editors could suggest that I’m “more equal than the others” (Orwell). Anyone who wants to click on my username will quickly find out what I look like (and there’s no guarantee I’ll be keeping that photo – or any photo – on my user page indefinitely).

I’m uncomfortable with the notion that I should be looked to for “approval” of anything. I agree with some things, disagree with others, but heaven forbid that my opinion on anything should be the final arbiter of any conflict. Consensus is what WP is about. I don’t want there to be the slightest whiff of "If Jack thinks something is ok, that makes it ok".

The footnote about being used as a character reference is one I’m not comfortable with. The context was that A.Z. overstepped the mark by telling another party that I don’t regard him (A.Z.) as a troll, but he never checked with me that such was my opinion. I had never expressed an opinion either way, to him or to anyone else. As I said to him at the time, merely saying that in that way (whether it happened to accurately reflect my opinion of his previous contributions or not) was in itself tantamount to trolling. I don’t presume to know what his intention was. He's yet to respond except to say he's thinking about my comments. So, with great respect, to me this is a really bad example of being used as a character reference. Maybe we just remove the entire reference to character references.

"Do what Jack would do" – The paradox is that, if I seem to be so unusual around these parts as to warrant WP:JACK being written in the first place, how would others know, exactly, what I would do in any given situation? I guess you’re saying “adopt the Jack philosophy/approach”. Let me see if I can find words I'm happier with.

This is still not my imprimatur to the document existing. However, I'm slightly less reluctant to it existing than I was yesterday. I do take a little while to get used to new ideas. In the meantime, let me know what you think of the above. Cheers -- JackofOz 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello.

With regards to the image, thats a perfectly reasonable request. I think the new one gives it a little more humour anyway.

Indeed. Thanks. JackofOz 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto the character reference, though I think that was the point of A.Z.'s comment, I understand that it is only my interpretation.

All we ever know about others' posts is our interpretation of them. Nevertheless, under the circumstances - and particularly given that that discussion with A.Z. has not yet reached its conclusion - I'd rather it go. I'll remove it shortly. JackofOz 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding approval: I agree, but surely you must realise that the spate of "ask Jack" comments were essentially people invoking your approval to try and an add weight to their opinion. That seems somewhat ridiculous to me hence the statement: "agreeing with him or her on past issues does not make his or her approval on any subsequent matter inherently more valuable." I consider this exactly the point: why does the person who says its ok (in this case you) matter? Its the idea that matters, not the person who endorses it. Is that not clear?

OK. If that's the intention, I'm happy with that. I might think about a way to word the references to approval to ensure readers know it has nothing whatsoever to do with my control of anything. Maybe I take the word "approval" a little too literally. JackofOz 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Do what Jack would do". I think you may be taking it a little literally (which is understandable, of course). Obviously you or I reading this will read "Jack" and think of you, personally. But try and think about it from another editor's point of view. This essay may still be there when the Ref Desk guideline debate is a distant memory. The chances are any person that reads if from now on will have never heard of you, or be aware of anything about you or the Ref Desk. I think (hope!) a person reading this will not aim to follow your personal philosophy. But simply consider if they have ever found themselves in a dispute they should treat their "opponant" as if he is a neutral, trusted user. This is what "Jack" - whoever the editor is, that that particular reader looks to - would do.

Again, OK about the intention. But I can't help feeling that some editors will read it, see "Do what Jack would do", and immediately ask themselves "Who is this Jack, and what would he, personally, do?". The last thing I want is editors sending me messages asking for my advice about their particular situations, or, heaven forbid, my intervention. Let's wait and see what happens. Such a scenario may never eventuate. JackofOz 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit this essay, just like any other article. If you can improve it, please do so! However, if (now, or at any time in the future) you decide you would rather it not exist just say the word and I'll delete it without prejudice. I guess I just thought the recent rash of "appeals to Jack" were both amusing and perhaps symptomatic of a polarised debate and that recounting the story might help avoid a similar situation among future editors unknown. If it doesn't come across like that, then there is no good reason to keep it. Rockpocket 03:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm OK about it staying put, for now at least. I will tinker with a little, though (which seems almost a shame, given the great work you've done to create it; but that's the nature of WP - nothing is ever set in stone). Thanks again, Rockpocket. -- JackofOz 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do get people spamming your page for advice, or even more vandalism as a result of this, please do let me know and I'll trash it! Rockpocket 04:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Shunsuke

Thanks for setting me straight. I somehow missed the writer's award link in the list. Time for new glasses, or something. Neier 11:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I need somebody to adopt me

Hello. I know you have three adoptees already, but I think you might be a very good person to adopt me. I am having major disputes with several editors, and need help in learning how to deal with them and also on how to edit articles while convincing other users that I have good faith. I am in a very explosive situation, so your help and expertise would be most appreciated. I have been accused of being sockpuppets of 4 or 5 distinct users simply because I am a code monkey who knows how to read instructions, read policy, and use google. For example, I have had trouble on the following two articles Louisiana Baptist University and Creation-evolution controversy. However, I have had good luck on at least two other articles Ten Commandments and Billy Sunday, where the users were much more patient with me. Thanks for your attention. My interests are in computers, science, religion, history, and defending the underdogs who are often portrayed as POV-pushers and sockpuppets. Infinite Improbability Drive 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: [1], thanks, I would like to take up you on your offer. You may contact me via email to discuss personal questions, but I am sort of a private guy about that. I really appreciate you doing this. Infinite Improbability Drive 05:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: [2]. Did you get my out of channel message? Thanks. Infinite Improbability Drive 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the RFC

Hello. I need advice on how to proceed now that two other users signed on to the RFC. Specifically, many of the items in the evidence section keep growing. Before responding, I would like to know if the section is allowed to continue to grow without bound. The reason I ask is many of the items have diffs, and as diffs are added, the sequencing of the items keep changing. This complicates referring to those items by number, and could lead to a great deal of confusion if I respond. Thanks. Infinite Improbability Drive 16:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for guidelines and your refusal to debate your views

Comments like this are offensive to other editors who spent hours of their lives trying to develop a set of guidelines for the reference desk; not to say that they are also completely unacceptable. If you have better things to do than to discuss the guidelines, don't pretend to discuss the guidelines. Walk away instead.

StuRat's remark was a really intelligent one; one that you either didn't understand or chose not to face: you sent him and myself to the articles because you can't explain what it is that you mean; and you can't explain what you mean because you don't know what you mean.

I probably know what you mean better than you do: you have a subjective feeling that certain things are good for the reference desk and bad for the reference desk, and the definition of what these things are is also no more than a feeling of yours, some thing that you can't logically explain because you haven't found out yet what on earth is the difference between what you want for the reference desk and what you don't want for the reference desk. You recognize it when you see it. You read an answer that you don't like and you go "hey, I don't like that. I wish this thing wasn't here. So, I'll delete it". But, since you cannot delete things without a written set of rules that will excuse your arbitrary deletions, you try and make those rules in a way that you can tell "hey, I can use this set to delete things that I don't like."

When, discussing those rules, someone points that you didn't explain what is the difference between things that are allowed and things that are not, you send people to the articles (!), hoping that they (the articles) somehow give a rational explanation for whatever it is that you are defending there, and which is no more than your subjective feelings. Or, worse, you already know that the articles won't explain anything for us and you are hoping to just get rid of the debate by confusing us.

You should admit your ignorance once and for all, and admit it that you can't explain what you are saying, and because of that you sent us to the articles. I know I may have sounded harsh, but I don't hate you or anything and I really really hope that you learn something with my post and stop sending us to the articles and stop refusing to discuss when people question you about what you mean and stop calling people who do that "trolls". Hopefully, if you do that, we can attempt to have some sort of respectful discussion in the future. A.Z. 17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That discussion was nothing whatsoever to do with developing guidelines. It was a distracting and pointless non sequitur. If someone asks what "why is the difference between X and Y" then they clearly do not know what X and Y is. StuRat didn't ask anything about "what is the difference between things that are allowed and things that are not", as you suggest. His question was nothing to do with my justification for anything. He simply asked what the difference is between two discrete types of website, he made no reference to their implication for the Ref Desk. I do know what the difference between those two things are, which is why I mentioned them seperately in the first place. The Ref Desk talkpage is not the page to educate individuals, there is an entire enecylopaedia here (incase you hadn't noticed) that does a perfectly good job.

If StuRat really just wanted to know what the difference between those two things are he could easily read the information in the handly links to the articles I provided. The first paragrapsh explains the difference explicitly. The fact that he didn't do that, instead choosing to question why I personally didn't explain it to his satisfaction, shows he is not interested in the answers to the questions he asks. He may not be intentionally trolling, but the result is indistinguishable, hence my desciption as carrying on the debate as provinding trollfood. I am happy to clarify things when asked, but I am not interested in debating for the sake of it, and I expect those people to ask questions that they want to know tha answer to.

I don't care if you think I am ignorant - though I'm not the one unable to distinuish between obvious differences - and I don't care if you "hate me", so please don't worry about it. It is mot my job to explain every single thing to you or StuRat when you appear incapable of understanding pretty simple concepts that everyone else at the Ref Desk has no problem with. If you don't understand something, please make a request for clarification on a talkpage and then read the references provided on response. If you simply wish to debate, take it to Wikiversity. Thank you. Rockpocket 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The only difference that the paragraphs talk about is that web chat sites "do not require registration". Well, the reference desk does not require registration.

You seem to ignore your own ignorance. Too bad. I really don't know how to handle something like that. I faced it many times, but I always ran away crying. I hope this time you are the one to run away. I choose to stay. A.Z. 18:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well there you go! Congratulations, you followed a link and learned something. Specifically, you learned the there is a difference between a discussion forum and web chat site. See, not so hard, was it? Now that you know the difference, perhaps you could inform our "special" friend of that difference in a manner he too can understand, thereby solving the problem. Thank you so much for your assistance in this matter. I bid you adieu, too. Rockpocket 19:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are lying. That's not what you meant by "understanding pretty simple concepts that everyone else at the Ref Desk has no problem with". I think you did not mean that everyone else has no problem understanding that Internet forums differ from web chat sites because one requires a registration and the other one doesn't. I think you meant something else, but you won't tell me what it is because it would be such an ugly thing to say. A.Z. 19:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The simple concept is the very fact they are different (and the reason it is simple is because they have different names and different articles - links to which I provided). They ways in which they differ are countless (e.g. one uses realtime chat software, the other uses threaded posts, one requires registration, the other doesn't, one has chat and in the title, the other has discussion... yadda, yadda, yadda). If you are unable to recognise the very fact things differ by reading separate encyclopaedic articles on them, then you are beyond my help. However, since you think StuRat's question was "really intelligent", you can now provide him with an example of a difference. If, as a consequence, he has more to say on the issue, he can ask me himself. The question is resolved, as far as I'm concerned. So please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Rockpocket 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't realize that labelling things "discussion" and "chat" is not helping the "discussion", the "debate", and the "chat" that we are having because not all people are inside your mind to guess just what you mean by those words, then you are beyond my help. A.Z. 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, please read WP:HORSEMEAT. Rockpocket 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, let me just remind you IT IS ALL MADNESS, ROCKPOCKET, THAT'S WHAT IT IS! Ha!, Ha!, Ha!-sorry, I simply could not resist that; I'll back off now. Best of luck. Clio the Muse 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's madness, cognitive biases and fallacies, all of them mixed together. I just don't go away for two reasons, Rockpocket: I care about what you and I care about the guidelines. A.Z. 20:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Improbability Drive

You ought to check out this item Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd) before you proceed with any adoption. I had started to accept the fact that this editor was turning over a new leaf. However, it is clear that he is a sockpuppet of a banned user, and no good faith should be extended to someone who evades bans. However, in order for due process to complete itself, I'm sure you'll be watching the RfC and the Sockpuppet. Of course, anything you do is your choice, and I'm just extending an opinion. Orangemarlin 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive, ImprobabilityDrive is likely a sock puppet of VacuousPoet. Arbustoo 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. I can't say I'm really that surprised. I'm not quite sure what he hoped to gain from the whole mentorship thing, perhaps he thought it would stop the checkusers and RfCs. Oh well, I'm sure he'll be back anyway. Carry on your good work combating creationism. Rockpocket 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the fourth or fifth incarnation of Kdbuffalo. It's tiresome. We'll be battling all day long. Orangemarlin 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey, sorry it took me so long to respond, I was a bit busy. If you don't mind I'd like to stay an adoptee a bit longer - I'm running into a few major problems (like here) and I'm not sure I'm comfortable being ... isolated when I'm about to face these problems, since I'm used to being able to check with you before I do something stupid (and doing something stupid in a major argument can lead to major punishments...). But, that being said, if you aren't comfortable remaining the addopt...er(?) ... then please feel free to tell me, I don't want to place any kind of burden on you!daniel folsom 03:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A Request

I would like you to settle things for us at the Warhammer (40,000) group. The main page has the use of the term variant. Variant armies, according to some of the books (Codexs) are sub catagory armies, and they list examples. Some people felt that it wasn't "current" or that the word variant means something different than how Games Workshop used it. They started arbitrarily removing things left and right. I provided two sources to verify my use of the word and those listed are exact quotes. They, however, say that either the work was out of dated and couldn't count (thus making their unverified understanding be right) or that the word variant means whatever from the dictionary and could apply to let them do whatever they wanted (i.e. remove things that are directly quoted in the Codex).

It is highly frustrating and by Localuz and Pak21, who have both histories of not contributing much to the group except to accuse people of rule breaking. I have worked many weeks on different pages, completely expanding, sourcing, fixing stubs, etc, and thats what I care about most. Its very frustrating to have those people basically follow me and any other around accusing them of rule violation when they don't even quote the rules correctly.

I put forth this as evidence:

Warhammer (40,000) Talk Page Project Page on the topic Pak21's Talk Page (I got into an argument with him misquoting Wiki which I later deleted and put in its place the mention that I do believe that he is here to improve the group and that I respect that in order to make amends and to leave things behind as per the standards in Wiki Ettiquette). Another User that I Butted Heads With (And I later tried to make amends). Localzuk's Current Attacks (And his continued trying to derail the group and claim a greater understanding of Wiki rules while ignoring them at his convienence).

If you can do anything to help, I would greatly appreciate it. I came back to Wiki because I saw many pages in the Warhammer section that were stubs and sorely needed help. I am constantly tracking down works and other such things to improve them. I want to do that, but it is hard when I have to deal with people like those who it is hard to assume they are here for good faith. SanchiTachi 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ack, Sorry

My last post was confusing so I decided to rewrite it. Sorry. Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Proposed_Addition_to_the_Policy They are now trying to cite IAR as a reason to get rid of a major rule, even though the WP:RFC page says "With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not." and Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions says "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)." SanchiTachi 01:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the only explanations put forth for why they changed the NOR is either over WP:Point or to win an argument. Is there anyway that we can get those pages moderated or watched by regular admin that can step in and nip these problems in the bud before they start? SanchiTachi 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Lode_Runner

Is that user a formerly banned user or a sock puppet? He just created the account and is already starting a "war against rule lawyers." If he is new, why he is on rules pages trying to edit them out? Also, if he is hellbent on getting rid of rules lawyers, couldn't all of his actions there be considered borderline vandalistic, or, at least, potentially trollish? He accuses me of breaking the Bite rule, but why would any "newbie" be in such a page trying to propose major rule changes? There is something extremely disturbing going on. SanchiTachi 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The way forward?

You can see what's happening, Rockpocket. I welcome suggestions on possible actions. Regards Clio the Muse 00:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. They are descending into the ridiculous! It could not better. Clio the Muse 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Its moving too fast for me to even comment. A complete an utter farce. Rockpocket 00:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Rockpocket, User A. Z. is both attempting to undermine the guidlines page and is becoming quite abusive in his editorial comments. Clio the Muse 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have persuaded him a short wikibreak would be a good idea, so hopefully that should be the end of it (for now). Thanks for letting me know. One thing though, be aware that the term "rv vandalism" is best avoided when referring to other editors (it goes without saying "REVERT FUCKING VANDALISM" is also not to be encouraged!). The reason is that "vandalism" has a very precise definition regarding intent, when used among Wikipedians and people tend to get a bit pissy when their edits are referred to as vandalism. Rockpocket 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I see User A. Z. has put his neck in the noose of an 'editor review.' I am strongly tempted to give one in the frankest possible terms, but will accept your guidance in the matter. Clio the Muse 11:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Rockpocket. Did you miss the above, or are you still reeling in shock? Clio the Muse 05:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, the 'brilliant' A. Z. continues to attack and misinterpret me on the RD talk reference guidelines page. You may have seen from my talk page that I had decided against comment in his editor review, on the grounds that I could think of nothing positive to say about him. I have now changed my mind. I will comment, in terms of the perception that I have. Clio the Muse 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

newbie editors vs. "The Cabal"

With respect to your complaint about this edit:

Out of context, and with the exception of its last sentence mentioning Clio, this is actually pretty standard fare among new and inexperienced editors, and not really so outrageous. New editors who get into tussles with experienced administrators have some pretty good reasons to believe that the administrators are out to get them. I firmly believe that, besides trying to persuade new editors that there is no cabal and the administrators are not out to get them, we also need to examine the way our administrators behave, and why it is that so many new editors repeatedly get this mistaken and destructive impression.

(I've written quite a few words about this phenomenon in various places at various times; I've got to relocate and collate them all sometime.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Steve. Its hard to do any admin related task without hearing it.

The irony is, if I was out to "get" A.Z., I wouldn't be warning him about 3RR before he violated it, [3] I would wait until afterwards then block him. I wouldn't have pleaded with him to not re-instate a snowballed RfA, [4] I would have told him to go ahead then watched him get blocked by others for being disruptive and I wouldn't be telling him to cool the rhetoric, I would be stoking it until he finally steps over the line.

There are certainly are admins that act in a rogue and irresponsible manner, just as there are new users who do likewise. However, no-one labels all new users "evil" based on the actions of a some bad apples, therefore there is no logical basis whatsoever for doing the same for admins. They are an easy target doing an impossible job (have a look on this page for an example of the no-win situations we get asked to help with) and its very convenient to say we need to change how "administrators behave", as if the entire group of them are in some conspiracy. I say we focus our attentions of those individuals - admins or otherwise - who need to learn how to behave, and don't afford any legitimacy to the idea that entire "groups" of editors are at fault. Rockpocket 03:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! You're right -- I should have said "examine the way some of our administrators behave". And the flip side is that at the same time we need to find better ways of convincing editors -- including those who automatically presume that everyone who says "there is no cabal" is part of the cabal -- that there is no cabal.

(My note certainly wasn't intended as a broadside against all admins, leastwise you.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that its difficult to tackle rogue admins. Thats the reason why it doesn't happen too often, though a poor justification for why we shouldn't. I think that is also the reason that people think there is a cabal and see bias in admin action. But the other problem is that those that complain most about admin actions are also those that misbehave the most themselves. If a polite, constructive editor asks for help - I will take on anyone if I feel they are being treated unfairly. But I have little appetite to get involved in a big conflict to help those that cause as many problems themselves. Why? Because like all admins, I am a volunteer, its not my job. Take A.Z. for example, he has created a vicious circle for himself because once you start calling all admins "evil", none of them are going to go out of their way to help him if another decides to block him unfairly. Why should they? That doesn't mean there is a cabal, but that would be exactly what would be claimed. So, what is they way out of this? I don't know, but personally, I try and treat all editors as fair as possible, irrespective of their past record. But one wouldn't be human if it didn't have some effect. Ultimately, there are enough editors that can work within the system that we should be spending our time on, to care too much about pandering to those that can't. Rockpocket 05:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

All points well taken. However, I wasn't talking about rogue admins, but rather, those experienced and well-respected ones who end up royally and unduly pissing certain new editors off, through some combination of brusqueness, insufficient attention to the AGF and don't-bite things, and other factors I haven't identified yet. (But yes, it's equally worth asking why it is that it's only certain edditors, rather than all editors, who end up badly put out by this phenomenon.) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't honestly believe admins are any more likley to be unduly brusque with new editors than any other Wikipedian is. They reason they it appears they are is because they are asked to intervene in problem situations. When two editors manage to resolve a conflict civilly there is never any need for an admin, its only when one or both of them start getting abusive that an admin is requested.

Its kind of like saying the police are more likely to get into scuffles than any other individual in society and therefore we need to address their violent nature. The reason police get involved in more scuffles is because they are put in situation where scuffles are more likely to happen.

That said, there are those admins that do appear to have very little patience with new users (just as there are non-admins). One certainly could argue because they are admins they should be held to a higher standard of civility than your average user, and I have some sympathy with that. The real question is how on earth do you change someone in that manner, admin or not, and how do you go about deciding what is an acceptable manner of dealing with problem editors and what is not. Rockpocket 17:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT input

Hello, Rockpocket. The Adopt-a-User program is looking for new ideas and input on the program. If you are still interested please stop by the talk page and read some of the ideas being floated and give a comment. If you want to update or change your information on the adopter's list page, now would be a great time! Thanks! V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 03:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption?

Hi Rockpocket. I was wondering whether you'd be willing to consider "adopting" me? I saw on the adopter page that you already have 3 adoptees, but I liked the wide-ranging subject matter of the contributions you list on your page and figured it couldn't hurt to ask. I want to start creating/improving articles and am also interested in some of the collaborative projects I've seen mentioned, but I've had some trouble generating momentum, which I think might be due in part to a general unfamiliarity with the editing tools, formatting conventions, sourcing, and various other aspects of Wikipedia. So, with all of that in mind, I thought I might benefit from some guidance. So, let me know what you think, or if you have questions, advice or whatever. Regards, -- Azi Like a Fox 08:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good Rockpocket. I'll look forward to hearing from you tomorrow and we can take it from there. Oh, I'm also on Pacific Time, so I can sympathize with the lateness of the hour. -- Azi Like a Fox 09:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rockocket. No problem on the short delay in response and I'll consider myself duly warned in regards to the addictive properties of Wikipedia, although, in the interests of full-disclosure, I have been told before that I have an addictive personality. :) So, yeah, everything sounds good to me. I like the flexibility and it seems like a good way to learn the ropes and maybe get some direction about different areas of Wikipedia in which I might be an asset, exactly what I was looking for. I'm on board. -- Azi Like a Fox 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, options, options. Lets see, I think I'll pass on coding for now, I figure I'll pick up a good bit as I go, looking at examples seems to be working fine so far, but I'll let you know if I have specific questions. Keeping my research skills sharp was part of the reason I started on the RefDesk, so I'd love to help flesh out some stubs and try to shorten your to do list. I'm also definitely open to learning some of the more administrative/cleanup/orginizational type tasks, but after browsing through the "discussion" on the RefDesk guidelines pages I think I might want to hold off on the "joys" of community pages, for now at least. :) -- Azi Like a Fox 09:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there was a specific stub I wanted to turn into a real article, but the great source I was going to use seems to have been swallowed by my basement...but hopefully I can find it. Azi Like a Fox 09:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A Vandal with a Registered Name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Caimdragon99

I already revereted one of his revisions. You can edit this post/title if needed. SanchiTachi 01:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but here is another 3R problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&curid=986140&action=history

Lode Runner felt the need to delete my comment from the Village Pump forum. He put forth that I was breaking rules by accusing him of breaking rules unfairly, so I quoted the pertaining items from the Ettiquette section that apply. It is definately a faux pas to delete someone else's comments in such a place like that. It is also unfair that he mades 3 or four revisions at a time on the page which keeps other people from being able to have a say. As you can see from my user talk page or from his claim that I would vandalise his page (I've never written on anyone else's user page), that he is a rampaging Mastadon. If you combine it with what he wrote on his own user page, User:Lode_Runner, "The War Against Rules-Lawyers" demonstrates that he is not there with NPOV and that he is unable to be objective. I believe he falls under the third part of what Larry said: User:Larry_Sanger "to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here."SanchiTachi 01:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Its unusual to block an individual for 3RR unless a report has filed, though it does look like he has violated the policy. You can make a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and It will be dealt with there. Also, thanks for the heads up about the vandal above. I was online, so it was easy to deal with. However, if you spot a vandal in action that needs to be dealt with, you can leave warnings (listed at WP:UW) on his talkpage and, if he doesn't stop after a few warnings, list him at WP:AIV and an admin will come along an block him. I'll try and have a look at your problem with Localzuk, later this evening. Rockpocket 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bring up the 3R violation, however, I do want to know what can be done about the "wiki-anarchists" as there is no real protocol, just that farewell message. I believe that the issue of Localzuk will never be resolved, even if I take back my claim that the Oxford English Dictionary is a credible source for how to spell British words and accept whatever else he puts forth as truth. Which is Found Here. All I am arguing for is tolerance on something that is in dispute (i.e. if ise or ize is proper) because people feel the need to revert them back and forth and it happened in quite a few of the pages. I do not understand how the article put forth by Wikipedia keeps people from being tolerant on an issue like spelling. SanchiTachi 02:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered this: "Also, I removed one sentence from your reply on the Village Pump page. I clearly stated on the WP:NOR talk page that offtopic personal attacks would not be tolerated. If you want to badmouth me, do it here or on the WP:NOR talk page. I will not let you derail this discussion into talking about my horrible alleged sin regarding the SINGLE edit (not "edits", like you said--unless you want to be pedantic and include spelling fixes) that I made. If this removal was, in itself, another horrible sin (probably, but then I would argue that personal attacks are graver) please keep your objections off of the village pump page. Take whatever action you deem necessary, get the higher-ups themselves to permaban me, but please leave this debate alone." User_talk:Lode_Runner and "Some people objected to my demonizing of rules lawyers and usage of the word "war." I'd be lying if I said this wasn't personal--I am COMPLETELY FED UP with these types of useless people." User:Lode_Runner

Maybe there should be a task force to monitor/deal with wiki-anarchists like there is one for Vandals? I don't know why I attract them, and, like real anarchists, they tend to scare me. Sorry for clogging up your user talk page, and once again, you can delete any of this if you want. SanchiTachi 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about just striking out my side of the conversation and saying that I don't care anymore and that I concede the language point, and that they can edit other people's spelling as much as possible and that I wont bother saying a thing. Maybe that will shut them up, because they are obviously so fixated on making sure that things are spelt one way when the Dictionary/Wiki page even gives alternatives. Its not worth dealing with people as stubborn as that. The "variant" argument was a fight over which armies get to go on the mainpage. According to Games Workshop, they sell a few different armies, then other armies are subgrouped under that. They were always called "variants" but some people wanted to use "variant" in a different way (I don't even know what they were proposing, because it was all confused). Some say that those individuals have their own army, but then refuse to list them as the main category for the armies, so its all silly bs and posturing. No one has tried to change it, so I believe that the arguments are for no real reason. Thanks for your input. SanchiTachi 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Do you think you can help me with my questions:

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Family_Trusts.3F

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Hostile_Takeover.3F

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#NYSE_stocks_-_alternative_trading_methods.3F

--Goingempty 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Azi

Looks like more than enough go get me going, thanks Rockpocket, I appreciate the help. Azi is just pronounced Ozzie, my nickname, the unusual spelling is due to its derivation from my real name. I have a kind of crazy schedule for the next seven days or so but hopefully I can get some edits done during any downtime. Talk to you later. Azi Like a Fox 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mischaracterisation of events

You will see, Rockpocket, from the Hitler and the Holocaust thread on the Humanities talk page that Loomis has 'come back from the dead' chiefly to attack me, as I always suspected he might. His remarks are without context or meaning. Quite frankly, I've had enough. I'm so sorry to bore you with this, but your trust has been betrayed. Clio the Muse 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideed. Objections without context or justifiction are utterly pointless and unconstructive. I'll speak to him about it later today. Thanks for letting me know. Rockpocket 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It was removed by Hipocrite, thankfully. Clio the Muse 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

He is now edit waring. Clio the Muse 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket I have now posted a detailed set of responses, addressed to both you and Jack of Oz, on User Loomis' talk page. I am deeply concerned with all that has been going on, both on the Humanities Desk and on the Guidelines talk page, where Clio has become a 'suitable case for treatment.' You may have already deduced, Rockpocket, that, despite my background and upbringing, I am a 'street fighter', and know how to defend myself with every conceivable skill, both high and low! Clio the Muse 07:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines lockdown

You said:

Both the request for protection and the protection itself was made independent of "the admins here."

Please direct me to the location where the request was made. StuRat 16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis

I notice you praised his sources criticizing Laurence Rees. Did you review the sources? You should. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you really should! Anyway, there is a response to your latest message on my talk page. Clio the Muse 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

This isn't exactly a pressing issue by any means - but could you take a quick look at my userpage and give me some feedback - for reasons I explain in a messagebox there, I've been trying to reduce the number of subpages I had (I had a huge number - I say in the message box), but I'm worried the changes are so drastic that they don't look good, or are just bad in some other way. Again though, if it's a rainy day and your bored, I'd appreciate it.daniel folsom 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit the Talk Page contributions of others

Despite what you may think about my contribution, it is NEVER appropriate to edit the contributions of others to delete an opinion you find offensive. StuRat 18:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please refer me to what you are talking about? Rockpocket 18:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk&diff=prev&oldid=130821753 He could be refering to that. And I believe that Stu does not realize that offensive material is supposed to be edited, as with other material. Plus, it can be "refactored" which means that its deleted and summarized, keeping only the "spirit" of the comments. What does this mean? That it is "appropriate" sometimes to edit comments. Speaking in absolutes tends to make people inaccurate. SanchiTachi 19:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I had the choice to delete the entire comment, or modify the comment to remove the WP:BLP attack while maintaining the useful material. I chose the latter and noted it had been modified beneath the post. Your objection to refactoring is noted, next time you choose to use Wikipedia to call a living person "evil" I will simply delete your entire comment. Rockpocket 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I was only refering to Stu about refactoring. I believe what you did is refactoring. Unless I am the one confused and you are telling Stu that he is objecting to refactoring, which, in case, I completely support. I shouldn't have butted in, but I noticed the dispute over there and got nosey. Strike, edit, or delete any of my comments that need not apply (for Rockpock to do that, not Stu). SanchiTachi 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the confusion my fault, the "you" in the reply above was in reference to StuRat, not SanchiTachi. Rockpocket 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Refactoring" does not include making changes to the meaning of a post, which is what you did. StuRat 23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring does allow an administrator to remove personal attacks and other offensive material while retaining any "point" that is made. Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages "Superfluous - Content that is entirely and unmistakably irrelevant." Personal attacks and offensive material fall under that. SanchiTachi 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I did not alter the meaning of the relevent information, only the distasteful "joke" (which was actually defamation). Moreover, I gave you (StuRat) the opportunity to make the change yourself, which you didn't accept, therefore you have little reason to complain when I made it for you. If you (StuRat) have a problem with my actions, why don't you take it the the admin noticeboard or RfC? Or even better, go and read our policies. That would be a lot more constructive than leaving me warnings that simply demonstrates your lack of understanding of WP:BLP. Rockpocket 01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dealing on a Similar Topic

A user, most likely, mistaken placed something in the wrong forum, or misworded it. I am refering to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&action=history

It is against policy to wholesale delete things without a reason. The post was obviously not vandalism. The user was also not given a chance to correct what they said, explain themselves, etc. My own mention about the post was deleted without cause. They did not attempt to contact an admin nor anything else. They have shown lack of good faith in myself and the original user. Could you please step in? They have acted very rude and have broken many of the Wiki policies and guidelines on editing. SanchiTachi 01:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to add: Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(policy)#Note_to_the_Three_People_Who_Blanked_Parts_of_the_Page

New users often place the wrong thing on the wrong place. The bold, and generally accepted thing to do, is to move the original post (and sometimes the responses) to the more appropriate place (like the Earth talkpage, for this example), so that those that have a genuine interest in the subject can comment. Its not really a case of someone having the right to remove the post, or someone having the right to keep it, its about what is best to address the issue raised. However, since the original poster will often come back to look for an answer, it is generally a good idea to leave the original heading with a comment explaining the move, and then provide a link to its new place. Alternatively you could leave a note on their talkpage with a link to the new page. This seems to have turned into a bit of a pissing match. I agree that the other editors involved were pretty incivil about the whole thing, but sometimes its best to look at the bigger and just let things like this slide. Rockpocket 02:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

But I think that they should have left it alone after I already commented on it, or done the right thing and refactored (which is leaving the heading, posting a link, etc). I wish people had more respect to other people's comments in forums like that. He did seem to bring up the issue of NPOV, but it was convoluted and unsure what he meant on it. But NPOV issues are Village Pump Policy topics, which would make an argument for it being legitimate. I just think that they care more about biting people (new or old) and that they think its a game. The Game Quote, if you look there you can see how he thinks its about "winning" an argument, instead of dealing with actual discussion and coming to consensus. SanchiTachi 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying i gonna chesck it tonightMoni(lilium) 11:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock?

Not to pry into things that are not my business, but what happened to Armed Blowfish. He always struck me as a quite polite and consensus editor in the short time I worked with him. S.dedalus 05:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, let me investigate. Rockpocket 05:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Strange. So he himself isn't blocked. He might be subject to an autoblock (which can happen if you are editing from an IP address which is shared with a vandal). That can be easily dealt with if he was to simply followed the instructions at WP:AUTOBLOCK. I'll leave the appropriate template on his page, but unless he tells us the IP address or username that is reported in the block text that only he can see, there is nothing we can do (its et up this way for security purposes). Rockpocket 05:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it turns out that Blowfish edits anonymously using TOR. Recently - very likely in response to the recent space of admin account hijackings - the WP policy on blocking open proxies was hardened, and TOR exit nodes were all hard-blocked for 2 years. The hard block unfortunately means that even trusted editors with accounts will be blocked from editing through anonymous proxies. There is little that can be done unless there is consensus to only soft-block open proxies, or group privileges can be implemented by the devs to give users like Blowfish immunity from autoblocks. Rockpocket 07:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That’s too bad. What would be necessary in order to get group privileges for legitimate editors? S.dedalus 21:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its just a case of the developers implementing it into the software. Blowfish has made a request for this and, if it was deemed a priority, I don't think it would be too technically challenging for them do so. However, I don't know much about the the devs work, so I don't know the process it has to go through to be adopted, or how likely that is. I'll keep an eye on the debate and see what happens. Rockpocket 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Thank So Much For Undoing The Vandalism, I guess it comes my the job:),again thanksArnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 18:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Suicide policy (was not so painless)

Thanks! and yes I saw that the proposal was rejected last night. That’s originally why I went to check on Armed Blowfish. As per WP:PG I guess the page could be reshaped as an essay, totally rewritten and reintroduced at a later date, or I could see if anyone is interested in starting Wikiproject:Suicid? S.dedalus 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

mouse

thank i cought the mouse brown with white belly) do u have a picture of what the nipples would look like and mine has some but ive never seen mouse nipples lol before so i cant tell if there a noremal sine do u have a picture of some if there sucling babes and pleas hurey. thanks --Sivad4991 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

azz

Just ignore him and let him be offended. I can only guess but it looks like what he really wants is attention. How about coming and getting stuck in on the evolution talk page. You probably need a bit of fresh air. OK, I know, it's more like jumping from the fire into the frying pan :) Welcome to wikiland. David D. (Talk) 03:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had already replied on StuRat's page before I saw this. I'm quite happy to explain if he didn't understand the reference, but I'm not interested in a long debate over it. I'm not sure I'm quite ready for taking on the creationists just yet, perhaps I'll have a look later tonight! Rockpocket 03:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly there is not a creationist in sight. I think they got scared off by all the scientific arguments about phylogenies. Basically, the're bored to death :) David D. (Talk) 04:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Article Banaphool

Dear Rockpocket,

I have gone through your contribution in the article Banaphool. I appreciate your article but would like to make some comments. I see that you have spelt the writer’s good name as Balāi Chānd Mukhopādhyāy and have expressed the opinion that his pen-name is variously ‘translated’ as Banaphul, Banaphool or Bonoful. I could have edited your comments in the standard wiki-manner, but instead, you being an administrator, I prefer to put to your attention some relevant information so that you can take an informed decision about which spelling to use. So here goes !! First, the good name. I think you have taken the spelling from the article Bengali Writers : An Alphabetical List which was created by me. In that article, I had used academic spellings with diacritical marks to show the original Bengali spellings. These are academic spellings and not meant for general purpose use. Therefore, you need not use the macrons to distinguish ‘long a’ from ‘short a’ (these are separate letters in the Bengali alphabet and the alphabets of other Sanskrit-derived languages). Apropos the pen-name, this is ‘transliterated’ and not ‘translated’ into the Roman alphabet used by the English language. This is a compound word made up of ‘bana’ (forest) and ‘phul’ (flower). ‘Bana’ is derived from Sanskrit ‘vana’. Sanskrit ‘v’ is pronounced as ‘b’ in Bengali. So, in my alphabetical list, I have generally written it as ‘b’ and as ‘w’ where preceded by a consonant other than ‘m’ or ‘r’ (except the special terms ‘Devi’, ‘Vidyasagar’ and ‘Vivekananda’). The second ‘short a’ is not pronounced when the word is used in isolation and is pronounced as ‘o’ when it is combined with a second word, e.g., phul. The word ‘phul’ is a short form of Sanskrit ‘phulla’. Sanskrit ‘phulla’ and English ‘flower’ both are ultimately derived from the same original Indo-European word (i.e., they are cognates). You have spelt it as ‘phool’, i.e., with a ‘long u’. This spelling is correct for Hindi, but not for Bengali. Now, whether to use ‘ph’ or ‘f’ ? The difference between the two is very slight and for academic consideration only.‘Ph’ is customarily used for Sanskrit-derived words (like phul) and ‘f’ for German-derived words (like flower). But in English spelling, ‘f’ looks better than ‘ph’. In a nutshell, Banaphul is Bengali, Vanphool Hindi (or Vanphūl if you want to use diacritical marks), Banaphool mixed (1st half Bengali, 2nd half Hindi) and Bonoful is a near-phonetic anglicized spelling. You can take your pick. You have not mentioned awards and filmography. The author had received the Rabindra Puraskar, the top literary award of West Bengal, in 1962 for his novel Hāṭe Bāzāre. This novel is so famous that an express train in India has been named after it (The Hate Bazare Express is probably the only example in the world of a train being named after a novel) ! Many major films have been made from stories and novels of Banaphul. Especially noteworthy were Agnīśhwar (starring Bengal’s matinee idol Uttam Kumar; this novel had autobiographical elements) and Bhuvan Som (directed by Mrinal Sen, this was the first ‘art film’ in Hindi; the ‘v’ in the spelling is needed as the film was in Hindi). There is another special aspect of Banaphul’s writing. He was the trend-setter of mini short stories in Bengali literature. Many of his important short stories comprised only one page or half-a-page. With thanks, Hrishikes 13:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

photo

Hi Rockpocket, I’m currently doing a lot of work on the Du’a Khalil Aswad page. It has been requested that a photo be found. Would ether of these photos be considered in the public domain since those who took them are in no position to come forward and claim copyright? The quality is low, however I think they’re the best that are in existence. S.dedalus 21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Riches

there are two pretty junior editors starting to edit war on The Riches, which I know you've contributed to in the past. At this point, as non-admin, I feel like I'll be fighting a losing battle here. Neither of them is adding a site that actually contributes; they're entirely forum sites with summaries of shows that have aired; no news, no speculation, no articles. I'm just trying to quell both of them (note that I removed the Cake or Death Riches forum, too, to be fair, which is superior to both the sites these two are flogging, and neither of them is making any noise about *that*), but it's getting way out of hand.

If you can pop in; even if my decision was incorrect (per the Manual of Style, which recommends not linking to fan forums unless the site they're on actually provides unique news) and there's a better solution to this, I think this needs someone with authoriTAY, and since you've been around the page, I figured I'd talk to you instead of posting it as a free for all to the Admin Noticeboard. --Thespian 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete

Can Sophistical Refutations be speedy deleted? It has no content. S.dedalus 20:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You can tag it with {{db-nocontext}}, though with another sentence or two of context, it might be sufficient as a stub. Rockpocket 00:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wallis Simpson

It's me again, Rockpocket! Have a look the Wallis Simpson thread on the Humanities RD (19 May). It's fun; really it is! Clio the Muse 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Rockpocket 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's that soggy policy?

Honestly, where is this policy on opinionated headings on talk pages everyone keeps referring to. I feel left out, the kid who isn't in on the joke, and it's highschool all over again. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Combing through talk pages, it seems like quite a few people aren't in on this one. I would once again like to express my appreciation of your patience in dealing with what makes me tie my tongue in knots in order not to mention the T-Word at this point. Is it possible to just ignore the words and revert the disruptive changes from now on? It angers me that editors such as yourself, Lambiam, eric, Friday, Jack, David, TOAT, LarryMac et al should waste so much time on so little. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats got the be the best course of action, and is something I am attempting to do as much as possible (though failing miserably most of the time). Its got to be balanced with giving fair warning and justification for the reverts, though.

I have decided that an outside view is what is needed here, since I, at least, am jaded by the whole process. Henceforth I'm simply going to refer the disruption to one of the serveral thousand other non-partisan admins that StuRat was asking to get involved. He found out today that many of those admins will be less tolerant of his disruptive behaviour than those of us he likes to demonise so often.

This process is following the same path the Light current did, with him railing against more and more admins for bias until their collective patience eventually ran out. Hopefully StuRat will have the sense to realise the problem is with him, and not everyone else who doesn't agree with him, and reconsider his Ref Desk behaviour before it reaches that point. Rockpocket 00:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All the best

Clio rides off into the sunset, defeated at the last by what I suspect to be a sockpuppet by the name of Eptypes. You will see a general note on my user page, but I wanted to say farewell to you in person. Take care. ♥ Anastasia Clio the Muse 03:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, going and not going is a bad thing, but I will continue to review my talk page, which is under attack from one 'Eptypes', whom I am now absolutly convinced is a sockpuppet. Clio the Muse 05:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove my comments

RP, my comment on Clio's page was not gloating (that would be saying "I'm glad you're gone") and didn't violate any policy, so don't remove it again. StuRat 04:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly. Suggest you let this one go, StuRat, and I am not in a mood to argue with you over this. Clio has indicated she is leaving, and she has made it clear she does not welcome comments such as you made. They are ungracious and impolite at least, gloating sopboxing at worst. She is not in a position to answer you, so if you wish to disuess the issue, so you on your own talkpage. I will protect her page if you continue this childishness. Rockpocket 04:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

My comment on Clio's talk page is neither gloating, nor disruptive, and if you continue to remove it I will take action against you on grounds of a 3RR violation. If, as she claims, she has left Wikipedia, then she would never even see the comment, much less be "offended" by it. StuRat 05:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In my view, StuRat's comment is patronizing and entirely unhelpful. It is also back on the page. Can I help in some way? Bielle 05:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of asking for some independent admin assistance (I don't wish to take administrative action myself, since it will simply lead to further accusations of abuse). In a case like this, you could remove the content yourself as I have - since I think the consensus would be that it is unwelcome and unconstructive and the more editors that indicate the the more likely StuRat may listen to reason. However, getting into an edit war with StuRat is never fun and is not something I would encourage. Rockpocket 05:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't place my comment back the last time, and now that Clio herself has removed it, I will respect her wishes. However, I still don't believe you had any right to remove my comments. I also strongly believe that she will be back as soon as she gets her ego stroked by enough people, which was the whole purpose of this drama in the first place. You will see, time will prove me right. StuRat 05:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Those comments were dickish in the extreme and that you could even think you have a "right" to make them demonstrates really poor judgement. Moreover, they are simply nasty in character; thats what is most disappointing. Even after three people indicated this to you still didn't get it.

Its becoming ever more clear to me that only thing that motivates StuRat from what StuRat wants is the real threat of administrative action. So be it. Rockpocket 05:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My statements are true, as you will see this when she comes back (as she already has, to some extent). Also, I see you finally found a place where you can call me an obscenity and get away with it, congratulations. (Or should I follow your example and delete things I don't like from other people's talk pages ?) StuRat 07:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rocketpocket, I respect your contributions at the science desk, but if Cilo has left, why are you trying to put oil on the fire which has been quenched by her leaving? Laissez-Faire - Let it be. --Eptypes 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sudden Appearance and Trouble

I don't know where to put this comment. I hope you will redirect it/me if I have chosen the wrong place. An editor using the name Eptypes has appeared for the first time today, I think. In the course of a few hours, he/she has revamped the Ref Desk, with the agreement of A.Z., and managed to be sufficiently agressive to drive off a long-time (and, on a personal note, very effective) Ref Desk editor. Does this not feel odd to anyone but me? I am a newcomer, but I have noticed that most of us start off small and slow, trying to learn the policy as we go. The "Be Bold" I assumed meant in respect of editing text, not in respect of basic structure of the sites, where consensus is required. This is all quite troubling. Bielle 05:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

50%+ questions on the humanities desk was about history. All other questions are being ingnored because of that. --Eptypes 05:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the reference desk talk page would more appropriate for this discussion than Rockpocket's talk page, because more people go to that page. I would really like to participate in the discussion, as the topic seems to be really interesting. A.Z. 05:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing that I would like to say is that I would never have predicted that Clio the Muse would leave Wikipedia because someone created a History Ref Desk. A.Z. 06:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's a reasonable amount of support to create a history reference desk. Eptydes's changes were a lot less controversial than mine. It is very likely, in my opinion, that there either is consensus about this now or there will be in a few months. A.Z. 06:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is no support. Don't try this stunt again, it is a complete waste of everyones time. David D. (Talk) 18:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There's far more evidence of strong objections to this split, than there is of support. I see zero evidence of consensus now. What may happen in the future is yet to be revealed. JackofOz 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Header

Your edit summary for this diff says rv - if you wish to add new desks, format it properly. I don't think the fact that something is not properly formatted is a motive to revert anything in Wikipedia. In fact, it goes against the whole wiki spirit. I for one have no idea about how to create one pretty picture like the mona lisa, the book, and the atom, but, since this is a wiki, someone can just go there and add the picture. Wikipedia is always under construction, and you have to let people place one brick, so the next person can place another brick on top of it. If people just revert everything that is not perfect, this project won't go anywhere. A.Z. 05:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, a test Ref Desk doesn't have to be perfect or complete. StuRat 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

peace and with dignity

Editors should be permitted to leave Wikipedia in peace and with dignity. What about Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Cilo has personally attacked me on her talk page accusing me of being a sock puppet. diff Cilo is using her fan base to take advantage of the situation, by claiming she is leaving when in fact she keeps editing her talk page! --Eptypes 06:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually she didn't accuse you of being a sock puppet, she said you give "every indication of being a sockpuppet". This is actually true, your contributions to the project so far do show all the hallmarks of a sockpuppet account. That is not to say you are a sockpuppet, just that its not surprising that others think you might be. Might I ask you if you have edited Wikipedia previously using a nother account? It isn't necessarily against policy if you have, but it would explain a lot of things. Of course, you don't have to tell me if you don't wish to (or you could do by email if you wish not to reveal the information publically). Rockpocket 07:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

They have lost again, Rockpocket. I have decided, after reflecting on the matter, that I will not go. I have been overwhelmed by the messages sent to me, both on my talk page and by email, and contrary to what StuRat alleges I was not looking for any of this. I will post a general message on my talk page a little later on, explaining my reasoning. And, finally, if you want to know who I believe 'Eptypes' to be look at the nature of his contribution on the Humanities Desk, his use of language, his tendency to inflate and misinterpret words (as demonstrated in the above), his latent sense of grievance, and his postings and editing comments on my talk page. I always thought there was a limit to malice and petty spite. Now I know that I am wrong. Clio the Muse 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Clio. I'm very pleased that you have decided to reconsider, the strength of feeling expressed on your talkpage reflects the value your contributions bring to the Ref Desk. Regarding Eptypes. If there is sufficient evidence to suggest he is a sockpuppet of another user, then a WP:RCU can be initiated. I'm not sure whether the request would be accepted quite yet (perhaps it might under code G), but I'm aware of the suspicions a few editors have raised. I have asked Eptypes if he can shed any light on the unusual edit history and will take that under consideration. In the meantime, I urge you to get back to what you do best and not get too distracted by certain other editors. Your public awaits ;) Rockpocket 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd diff

Hi Rocketpocket. Have a close look at this, very odd diff. ([5]) --Dweller 09:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly a meatpuppet edit. David D. (Talk) 18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Something odd is afoot (see here). I'm trying to work out exactly quite why this editor, if it is a sock, is so interested in StuRat/Loomis/Clio et al, and if there is more to it than meets the eye. Rockpocket 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm trying to work out how an editor who's supposedly been around for only a week gets to fiddle with the structure of the Ref Desk. -- JackofOz 02:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. It happened at the time when the least editors are online - early morning GMT, when most of the US and Western Europe are asleep. I was online but kind of missed it happening (because I don't watch the humanities desk). By the time I noticed what had transpired, A.Z. had gotten involved in ~~reverting~~ questioning my attempts at stopping it and I didn't wish to violate 3RR. Then StuRat tried to make hay while the sun shone (staying up to 4am in the process). I tried to limit the damage, reported it to WP:AN and went to bed, hoping when Europe came online a few hours later it could be sorted by consensus. Rockpocket 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember reverting any change of yours. A.Z. 05:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I apologize. It was Eptypes who reverted, you (and StuRat) questioned my change (above) but didn't revert it yourself. I have altered my comment to reflect that. Apologies once again. Rockpocket 06:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping EL clean

Thanks for stepping in on The Riches. I wasn't fighting any wars, I was trying to keep the EL clean of spam sites. Guess I should have asked an admin instead of taking it up on myself to do so. Steve110

RFAR

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cilo_the_Muse.2C_Hipocrite.2C_Rockpocket.2C_StuRat.2C_Loomis51.2C_A.Z._.26_me_Eptypes. --Eptypes 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Oh thanks! And don't worry about the userpage timing - it was a small task and I expected it to either take a while or not happen at all - but I appreciate you doing that! And I appreciate the barnstar! By the way - I'm editing the arbitration case section to write this - and I couldn't help but noticing your name in that - if you need anyone to defend you (aka attack other people ... just kidding) - feel free to ask! Right now I'm kind of in a hurry - but if you want I can take a look at it later. K I better be going - but again thank you so much!daniel folsom 11:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer of support, but the RFAR was without merit has already been deleted - it was just a sockpuppet editor trying to cause disruption. Rockpocket 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

deletion

You deleted Scientific Beliefs, this leads me to think you also deleted AIC, which obeyed all the policies! WHY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikro (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about. AIC has not been deleted and, as you can see, I have never edited that article. Rockpocket 18:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for acussing you, but AIC was deleted, i requested it's return since it was completely obeying the policies, and thus it was returned. Sorry, i now have noone to blame but speedy deletion :D

An interesting article

This is an interesting article. Kdbuffalo2 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

“

Newcomers who try to put Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" into practice on sensitive political subjects are often shouted down, or baited into committing rules infractions that lead to a lifetime ban.

”

It all depends on how you define left. Almost everyone is left of Pat Robertson. David D. (Talk) 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is also an interesting article. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)