User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 14

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 10

←

Archive 12

→

Coral

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for the cleanup on coral smith - not that it's my article or anything - not trying to imply that - but I was afraid of taking out the npov without continuing the conflict that I didn't want to be involved in, so rather than put some work in I did the lazy thing and just put up the NPOV and wiki templates - so sorry about not doing that myself and making you do more work than you should have had to. --daniel folsom 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Sometimes its better if a completely uninvolved editor comes in and does cleanups anyway. Rockpocket 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Major Help Needed

Hey rockpocket, I have to ask you to help me out again at Gangs in England. It's possibly right now one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. I just removed TUNS of copyright violations - from different sources - but I'm having trouble finding the copyright problems because Google gives bias torwards american results. Again, if you have time I would really appreciate your help. (Just to let you know I'm also suggesting that it be merged with gang for reasons listed on the talk page) --daniel folsom 01:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look later this evening. By the way, if you wish to bias for English results, try searching http://www.google.co.uk and checking the pages from the UK box. Rockpocket 05:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

God that page is a mess. I get the feeling much of it is lifted verbatim from elsewhere, perhaps the books quotes at the bottom, but I can't find anything using google. I would be tempted to {{cn}} tag much of it and, if no-one comes forward with sources, then to delete large swathes. I'll see what I can do in the next few days, but its late here and I need to sleep! Rockpocket 07:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh - sorry for keeeping you up! Eh, yeah - I found three major chunks (like a paragraph or more, oh and a whole section) that were blatantly copyrighted. I'm almost thinking that it's not worth it - but I've been working on the gang article and I wanted to expand the scope of the gang article (which only has info on American gangs) to Europe, so hopefully I can work on it a bit. --daniel folsom 12:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sneaky.jpg

I provided fair use for Image:Sneaky.jpg album cover, but the deletion tag is still there, I just was wondering if you can check the fair use to see if it is acceptable and if the tag still needs to be there because I don't want it to be deleted. BetacommandBot is the one that put the fair use disrupted, I contacted him but he has not gotten back with me, so maybe you can check it out?--Migospia †♥ 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Do I have to wait for an admin to remove the disputed tag, or can I because when the bot tagged in on the user page people said they added fair use and removed the tag themselves--Migospia †♥ 02:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't want to get it deleted.--Migospia †♥ 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would wait. It will not get deleted without a pair of human eyes checking it. I would expect the policy on this to be established before anyone does anything regarding deleting. If you want it to be kept for the long term, its important that the image meets our fair-use criteria, and the best way to ensure that happens is to get the closing admin to check it. Rockpocket 06:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is the closing admin?--Migospia †♥ 07:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Whomever takes it upon themselves to clear the backlog when its finally decided what is required for a valid fair-use claim. Rockpocket 07:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel's not showing good faith

Daniel and I made up yesterday, and I tried to be friends with Daniel by noticing how Dscarth called his arguments fallacious when they weren't and I pointed that out on the yogurt talk page. However, Daniel also came to my talk page with this.

Actually, just so you know - I have a plan with the yoghurt page. See if no one comments on the spelling for long enough (even if it's just Dscarth) I can archive the debate. See the reason this time is so frustrating is because we had actually just voted on it and there was no consensus - usually that will end the debate at least temporarily - because the article itself is not that great and it's better to focus more on the article. So again, I'm trying to archive it but that means I have to restrain myself from replying to dscarth - who seems intent on just pissing everyone off to continue debate

Daniel came to my talk page with this after I admitted what he said was bad faith:

Haha - nope, not in this case. Believe me I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know it's policies. There's a difference between assuming someone just came to a talk page and was trying to piss people off and assuming someone that has been doing so for a while is trying to piss people off. For example - on Wikipedia if a person vandalizes a page - we assume that a mistake was made, an accident. But if the that person keeps comming back, we actual call them a vandal.

Now, I may be Daniel's friend but there's no way on earth I am going to be biased towards my friends, because it's not fair to other editors. I let Daniel know that it was bad faith to say such a thing. Daniel didnt think it was in bad faith to say that about Dscarth and I hope you will talk to him and let him know that it is. I don't want him to be upset with me. I just want him to follow the rules EverybodyHatesChris 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy. Secondly, Daniel said dscarth... seems intent... in other words, that is Daniel's interpretation after significant interaction with dscarth. I have no idea what is going on with dscarth. It may well be a large assumption of bad faith in Daniel's part, or he may indeed be trolling the page just to piss people off. I don't know, and I don't really care. If you have an opinion on that, tell Daniel yourself.

Finally, and with all due respect, if dscarth himself came an made a complaint I may consider approaching Daniel, but since the alleged WP:AGF as nothing to do with you at all, there is little to be gained from pursuing it.

If you don't like Daniel's forthright style then stay away from him, but please stop engaging him in "friendly" banter, then going behind his back and reporting him when he says something you don't agree with. If someone seriously violates policy, there are number of warnings any editor can issue (see WP:UW). Please consider using them. If the behaviour continues to the extent it is disrupting the project, then by all means let me know and I'll look into it. However, admins are not here to babysit, and we are not inclined to dish out cautions for every little squabble, especially when they are as isignificant as this. Rockpocket 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Template Useful?

Hey Rockpocket, so I know above you just said that I shouldn't try to involve you with things that don't concern you (sorry bout that) - but I was wondering if you could help me with this one template (I swear last time) that I'm not sure where to go with. I was finding articles that read like obituaries, and I couldn't find a great template for them, so I just created {{obit}} - but I'm not 100% sure about the wording, and I could really use someone with your sense regarding the aforementioned to just make sure it is not incredibley barbaric. If you don't have time to do this or anything don't worry about it - I'll just figure it out eventually and see if anyone else is availible. Again, sorry. --daniel folsom 02:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems ok to me, my only criticism would be that "thusly unsuitable" is very obtuse phrasing, it probably better to keep it simple on a template. Rockpocket 05:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See this is what I mean when I essentially say you're smarter than me - what do you mean by obtuse phrasing? (Obtuse angles are the big ones! XD) --daniel folsom 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha. "Obtuse" - meaning "not clear or precise in thought or expression" [1] probably wasn't the right word to use anyway. I was just trying to say that "thusly unsuitable" is not a commonly used phrasing and appears to mean the same as "therefore is unsuitable" which would be much clearer to those who only speaks english as a second language, for example. Rockpocket 02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I gotcha - thanks for the tip I'll change that right away, yeah, I've never actually used thusly in my language before - but for some reason I was inspired (I was kinda listening to the radio while i did this - maybe I heard it there...). And by the way, you probably know this, but just for reassurance, you're absolutely fine on the ANI thing - no one will punish you. The only people that have a chance of getting punished would be me and EHC, me for my relatively incivil comments on the talk page (although I don't remember what I said - I gotta go check ... eek), and him for his numberous threats. Seriously, unless EHC becomes an admin before it closes - then you'll probably be praised for how you handled the situration. --daniel folsom 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I'm not particularly bothered, I just said it as I saw it. If the community thinks this should have been handled another way, then thats fine and I will take their advice. However, I think everyone has pretty much seen it for what it is - a storm in a teacup. Rockpocket 02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok actually - I'm not going to let him get away with this. I think it's slander at best, and it's absolutely insane. Like I am so mad right now because if you look at this user's track record - it's rediculous. So even if it means I'm going to have to trash my own reputation in order to do so - I will not let a single claim of his against you go by, it's not fair to target you in something where if anyone should be targeted, I should. I'm going to call him out over and over - because at this point I'm going to ignore WP:Civil and follow WP:Cut the Crap . --daniel folsom 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How's this? I just want to run it by you before I put it on--daniel folsom 03:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

YAY CIVILITY!
Statement	Inevitable Flaw
FIRST INCIDENT w/ Administrator Rockpocket:	You say that you never called anyone a vandal - then you say you called only migospia a vandal - both wrong. You called Migospia and me a vandal.[2]
SECOND INCIDENT w/ Administrator Rockpocket:	You decided to take a careless, mean-nothing comment and distort it to be a violation - which is why I was upset with you. Rockpocket however, was rightfully upset - as you were unfairly dragging him into the debate when you should've posted here, you aren't supposed to use other users' talk pages like that.
he won't acknowledge that Danielfolsom's has done something wrong and instead lies about very old incidences with me that only happened ONCE, all to justify Daniel's behavior and become uncivil towards me.	Can we start a new article : Top ten most persistant pushers of conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. I got an idea who number uno can be.
Note: This can be expanded at any time

K I'm going to use that as a last resort - as in if he keeps doing what he's doing, but I'd like to give it some time to see what happens. --daniel folsom 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. I appreciate you are frustrated at EHC's MO (which appears to be to report everyone he comes into contact with, and if the person he complains to doesn't agree with him, he complains about them too). However, its clear to me that getting dragged into a debate with him is not going to serve any constructive purpose. That table will only incite EHC to make further complaints. I would recommend WP:SHUN as the best way forward here, that is certainly what I will be doing, and It appears to be be what other admins are doing. Eventually EHC will get tired of "reporting" everyone and move on himself.

I also appreciate your concern for me, but really, don't worry about it. This is part in parcel of being an administrator. I encouraged EHC to make a complaint if he thought I was abusing the tools and that is what he did. While I think the com;laint is entirely without merit, I welcome other editors reviewing my actions occasionally, only then can I be sure that my judgement is in tune with community spirit. Rockpocket 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No! I like Daniel's show of bravery right there. I wouldn't report anyone for that kind of bravery. Nice job, Daniel. I think we can all learn something from everything you just said. You had real guts in making that comment with that WP: Cut the crap. lol! Takes a lot of guts, my boy. That kind of bravery and heart puts me in a good mood. Not a lot of people can put me in a good mood. First show of guts I have seen since joining wikipedia. Gentleman, I think we should start off on a clean slate and put all this fighting behind us. You have moxie, Daniel. Keep it up. That kind of moxie will get you places. EverybodyHatesChris 20:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your vegan revert

You re-added serious to consequences, when the diseases and consequences aren't considered serious I am just curious as to why, maybe something I am missing? Thanks.--Migospia †♥ 02:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I changed it back was because the sentence read "These deficiencies can have potentially consequences, including anemia..." which doesn't make any sense gramatically. If the consequences arn't serious, there there is no point listing them. However, rickets, anemia and cretinism are not inconsequential disorders. They way I see it, if the deficients can lead to those then it is a serious consequence, if they can't lead to those disorders then it isn't, but then that entire sentence is incorrect. Rockpocket 02:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you can change it to "These deficiencies can have potential consequences, including anemia...", which makes more sense--Migospia †♥ 02:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can. If you wish to do that then go ahead. Rockpocket 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Veganism 3RR

Oh please Rockpocket someone removed my tag so that gave me the right to at least change the wording if not put the tag back, you did a partial revert and I talked with you about it so that let me do the second revert and some newbie might as well me an anon ip reverts all my hard work that gives me more grounds to rv than that kellen did which still thinking about makes me VERY angry she got off. And yes I know there is an issue to be resolved now but it's not like I am in some edit war. And I already said talk about it on the talk page but this one person is not making any sense as well as Madeleine, SlimVirgin and kellen has issues with me because they are all buds so talking with them is not going to get anywhere.--Migospia †♥ 21:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Also please watch what you say to me, in times like theses you tend to say things about me that aren't true and come off very mean and start accusing me of things, just a friendly reminder to be nice--Migospia †♥ 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

as Migospia says....

Talk vegan I thought it was already cleared but you kept saying Migospia this Migospia that, for future reference you don't need to do that because there is not point and it is not nice, just advice! =) Peace?--Migospia †♥ 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that advice under consideration, thank you. My intention was to explain why the debate had been about the word "serious" and not the more relevent issue, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I didn't mean to make it sound accusatory. I apologise if I gave that impression. Rockpocket 01:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you I accept your apology--Migospia †♥ 01:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vince McMahon

I was trying to read the article Vince McMahon. (His name came up on the Ref Desk and I accessed the article, without a clue as to what I would find.) I know nothing about professional wrestling except for what "everybody" knows, which is neither sound nor encyclopedic. I assume from the text in the article that Vince McMahon is a real person who is currently alive, as well as a character in shows and films, though not really an actor. Very little seems to be sourced in this article and some of it seems too fantastic to be true. I was astonished to find almost no contention expressed on the talk page; there is very little challenge to any of the statements. (I draw your attention to Paragraph 3.3 for example.) Perhaps this is all as well known as Paris Hilton's short jail stay, and thus requires no sourcing and/or perhaps Mr. McvMahon likes to be talked about in such a manner. It may be, then, that I am just too square. Could you take a look at the noted section 3.3, if nothing else, and then let me know what, if any thing, I should be doing? (I certainly can't argue any facts.) Thanks Bielle 01:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Remarkably enough, that appears to be real [3]. It should be better sourced, though, as should most of the rest of the article. Pro wrestling articles are in a world of themselves, really. They tend to be poorly written by people that believe its for real. The should probably be treated more like fictional characters, since thats what the essentially are, but since they are also personas of real people they should meet WP:BLP. My suggestion would be to use the {{fact}} template for anything that seems particularly outrageous or unlikely. If no-one comes along and provides a source for it within a few days then it can be removed. If something is slanderous and isn't sourced, then you can remove it immediately per WP:BLP. Rockpocket 02:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Given what appears to go on in that world, I don't know what might be considered slander, or libel. There are jurisdictions where, just because something is true does not means it cannot also be libel or slander. Perhaps it is the attitude of the character that matters. "Say anything about me, but spell my name correctly." Thanks for your thoughts. I realize from perusing the other section on this page that you have much more pressing matters to deal with at the moment. Bielle 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

hmmm

But you don't get it I am over it and I don't care, however I do HATE when people keep bringing it up and add how you didn't, taking it to WP:AN/I is not going to do anything because it is in the past, but just dont bring it up, thats it! and dont do it again simple quite i think....--Migospia †♥ 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to edit in that manner. If you continue to edit war, or violate WP:3RR again, then I will warn you again. That is not a personal attack. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you address it now, because its not going to go away. As I said, I am perfectly happy to listen the the community on this. Rockpocket 03:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am saying Daniel brought it up not me not you but yes if I ever edit war or violalte WP:3RR ever feel free to warn me, but you can't warn me and say I violated anything when I did not like your statement just now says:

If you continue to edit war, or violate WP:3RR again I didn't so you need to stop accusing me and say if you do this then you are in an edit war and etc, not when it was not like that although I was aware that if I had reverted or edited anything again without talking to an admin then I would have anyway so its a moo point--Migospia †♥ 03:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rockpocket - I hate to get in the middle of this, but just FYI - the only thing I said was I'm glad that your first one-on-one debate (refering to the veganism) was with Rockpocket because a lot of new editors would get frustraed and freak out, so it's nice that you get to have the debate with someone more expierienced. Sadly, this led her to bring up the old debate somehow, which I felt compelled to respond to. To me it seems like there is either a grudge being held or the debate never finished - but it just seems to keep popping up. Just my take--daniel folsom 03:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea because you brought it up dude thats why it somehow keeps popping up-'From what I remember he didn't attack you ', - Just saying before you said that I was not even thinking about it, but once you said that I had to defend myself. Thats the take--Migospia †♥ 04:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Bottom line: By definition of Wikipedia I did not edit war and if I was any other user you would not have said that because you know that Edit war: An edit war is a conflict between editors on a wiki in which users constantly revert a page between conflicting versions.

That was not being done. Anyways I hope you understand now and have a good day peace!--Migospia †♥ 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Migospia and Daniel and stuff

Thanks for your message. I have no problem if you want to take a break away from it. I don't see that you are so involved regarding last nights events anyway, so a withdrawal sounds like a good idea. I would like to point out that you have, IMO, been spot on with your considerations, actions, and opinions. You may want to think about counselling Daniel to, again, follow your excellent example. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually funny you mention it - I had just said that on her talk page exactly 11 seconds before you said it on mine! But yeah - I don't see me getting anywhere with her. It's so frustrating because I tried the relazed approach and thought it worked - but turned out she took that as a sign of support and decided she was right about everything, and now that I say that's not the case - I'm getting some really hateful emails- I think I've gotten three so far - so I'm not really sure if there's a workable way around it. --daniel folsom 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note

I would advise you that I have posted a comment, asking for clarification, at WP:AN EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs) possible trolling? regarding EHC's conduct, which mentions you in passing. LessHeard vanU 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WP:TALK

Welll I was not sure if that was okay to do but since I did not remove any text, I did not see any harm in doing so as well as I see people editing grammer and spelling on talk pages. I asked Lessheard about this 6 hours ago it seems he is not on anymore so didn't respond. But thank for letting me know!--Migospia †♥ 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it is off topic and you might not respond with help but:

User:Bearcat keeps trying to put a note in the middle of the Michaëlle Jean article, I put the disamb note at top and the user did not seem happy about it. Maybe you can help me out, if the note the user is trying to put in the middle of the article should be there are not.--Migospia

EHC

Hey Rockpocket - so I don't know if you checked out the ANI for Everybody hates chris or not (I myself haven't), but because I was watching EHC's talk page from an earlier dispute - I noticed that he was blocked and he seemed to disagree with the course of action (the block) - so I'm wondering if this was the right thing to say to him in response.

EHC - if you want the block to be removed I think you can really do one of two things:
Challenge the block itself - say that the block was unfair and it shouldn't have happened (NOT reccomended)

Go over the list of grievences, look at some of your debates (like the ani with rockpocket and some of the links mentioned there, and the ani with you, and anything else you can think of) and try to find what you have done wrong - then maybe in a day you should type a fairly long thing (It should be maybe 8 sentences at least I would think) on the mistakes you made and how you're going to make sure you'll not make them again. If you take the time to do this and you do it well - then I'll help edit it and then you can put the template {{unblock}} on it - while there's no gaurentee that the block will be removed, it's a start, and I'll do everything I can for you assuming you're willing to put in the effort.
Good Luck --daniel folsom 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Crossing my fingers, --daniel folsom 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice to me. Rockpocket 04:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet - although I'm kinda hoping it takes him a few days - I'm not ready to defend another editor and thus likely argue with a different one. XD. Regardless - what would you say the chacnes are of getting an indef block lifted in about a day? --daniel folsom 04:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he could get his block lifted pretty easily, if he knew what to say, how to say it and then actually do it. However, if he was capable of doing these things, he wouldn't be blocked in the first place. Rockpocket 04:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(per User talk:EverybodyHatesChris) - Apparently he doesn't want to get back - this user has just confused me - it's def. been the most frustrating week ever on Wikipedia. Haha, alright - I'm off but I'll see you later - here's to a better next week --daniel folsom 05:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious

I am just curious how you know what I am doing on Wiki all the time, is it an admin thing or do you watch all the pages I edit or check my contribs a lot? (This is a real q)--Migospia †♥ 07:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of the pages you edit are on my watchlist (which currently amounts to 2,649 different pages (excluding talk pages) and includes pretty much every animal rights related page). I have been watching the discussion at PETA, with amusement, for sometime. Its amazing how things that seem so insignificant to some people can be mean so much to others, don't you think? Rockpocket 07:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I know! I think it's insane I mean I am not really pushing for companion animals I am just wondering what's the big deal? It's a nicer way than saying pet but apparently it is such a big deal they have to get angry and bring in a hate group into a love group! I know sometimes I might fight for something strong when I believe misleading information in an article (i.e veganism) and come off as a bit a little into it but most of the time I am neutral (don't laugh I am!) But I would not mind if the pet thing stays for some reason some people want it to but at least change back for reference [70]

Also are you for or against animal rights?--Migospia †♥ 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

On philosophical grounds I don't generally believe animals should have rights, no, though I am a strong advocate of animal welfare and believe humans have a great responsibility towards animals.

If you don't mind me saying so, I do believe you are neutral. The problem comes, not just for you but for all of us, when we edit on a subject that we really care about, because then it is almost impossible to be really neutral. The trick is recognising those occasions and then being able to spot who really is neutral and deferring to them. Its easier said than done, of course, but that I think is what we should all be aim to do (myself included). Rockpocket 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you and I see what you mean about that and agree we should all aim there as well aim for peace and love for all.

I am over with the pet mess thing so can you edit it to were the companion animal is used in with the reference number [70], since it is in the article already and taking it out would not be good faith?--Migospia †♥ 08:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about reference 70. The article currently appears to use the term companion animal (as well as pet) in the citation, what has been taken out?

I think its a good idea to give it another day or so to see if any consensus can form around my proposal, or not, before making any further changes to the article. The way I see it, since its a minor matter, its better that the article remain stable and we thrash it out on the talkpage, rather then we revert back and forth. Eventually some agreement will be reached and we can then edit the article. Perhaps, if we can make a convincing enough argument, those who have been reverting from your version will change it back themselves. That, to me, is always the most satisying solution. Rockpocket 08:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

further thoughts on Mingin'

hi rockpocket, what you said about the origins of the word Mingin' got me thinking about the word 'Minge' - basically used in the same context as Mingin, but usually (espically where i grew up) as a slang for female genitalia, don't think i will be introducing this word to beille thou... just can't think of a nice or scholarly way of doing so " hi beille, beille this is 'minge', 'minge' beille..." ;) Perry-mankster 09:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why Perry-mankster believes he must present something to me in a "nice or scholarly way", as I am myself neither nice (in any of its meanings, old or new) nor, in any formal way, a scholar. I am likely old enough to be his grandparent, I have heard or read all the other slang terms for female genitalia, in English and in French. Curious, that.

"Mingy", pronounced to rhyme with "stingy" and not with "stringy", means "small" in the sense of "mean" or "cheap" on this side of the pond: "What a mingy serving of pie that is! Are you saving the rest for someone you like?" Bielle 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I think that is just the British reserve kicking in. We weren't brought up to use such words in polite company, you know, not like those uncouth people from the colonies ;) I hadn't thought of minge though, and Perry is correct, one would assume, that its from the same root. I expect a Canadian who referred to a serving of pie as mingy would get some startled looks in the UK! Rockpocket 17:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That piece of pie would be an interesting variation on the Shroud of Turin. Perhaps Hugh Heffner would be interested. Bielle

Vandal ip

Sice you are an admin I think you should know that it seems 194.81.39.249 is being used for vandalism--Migospia †♥ 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, some one has already blocked him or her. Rockpocket 17:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

thumbnailing and forcing image size

Thanks for reminding me, but I was already aware of the preference for plain thumbnailing in order to preserve user optioning. I specifically forced the image size in that case so that it would not conflict with the readability of the text, as there are several images in that small section. VanTucky 23:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Great use of the Get Your War On quotation! VanTucky 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Random Question

Hey Rockpocket, I keep getting emails about one of my activities (positive and negative - but mostly negative) which is going to CAT:CCSD and trying to fix up all the articles there (of course I still keep the speedy tags on). Do you think this is an ok practice? Because I've done it a thousand times and I don't want to keep doing it if it's not ok. Just to let you know the biggest mentioned problem is that I do it even when the article will most likely be deleted (like even if I think an article is really bad I'll make some fairly big edits on it just in case I'm wrong and the article is kept) - I've been told by two editors that I'm preventing the encyclopedia from improving by "playing with crap" while all the other editors "don't fucking suk and do god stuf (sic)". Again, I'd just appreciate some feedback as I just got the like 5th negative email - and I'm used to no one emailing me so it's kidna weird.--daniel folsom 04:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that editing candidates for speedy deletion is the best use of your time, since the majority of them will probably be deleted irrespective of how much you can improve them. However, doing so certainly does no harm and there may be some candidates that could be rescued by a good rewrite (notable A7s and G11s or G12s, I guess). I'm not quite sure why anyone, in good faith, would send you a critical email over it - if thats what you wish to do, I don't see what its got to do with anyone else. Don't worry about it. Rockpocket 07:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet - and just to let you know the reason I do the contested speedies is because I figure most times if someone's dedicated enough to not only create the article, but also come back and put a speedy on it, then there might be something good there and perhaps even if I can't save the article I can help the editor save his or her next one. That being said, you're right, it seems like 9 out of 10 times no matter how much I work on it and format it, the article ends up being deleted, which kinda sucks. The only ones I can think of that I've saved are Politicks and Pimp Juice (don't ask about that last one). It's so frustrating that I think I will probably find something else to do, but either way thanks for the feedback! --daniel folsom 11:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nm, I didn't do pimp juice - i did Pimp Juice (drink) - a lot different. --daniel folsom 15:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD Nomination

TfD nomination of Template:Abuse

Template:Abuse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Andeggs 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Persia White and Scientology

You really do have a big watchlist... I wanted to talk to you about this because of some edits to the Persia White article. That link you showed me was not listed as a source it was just some writing which I did not think writing about some journal is a source, but how do they work?--Migospia †♥ 07:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This one didn't come from my watchlist, but through my recent changes spool on Vandal-proof. Sources do not need to be online, and the source provided - on the face of it - appears to be genuine. This is where WP:AGF come in, unless you have a good reason to believe the source is spurious then we assume its a valid source. It lists a magazine, an issue and a page - so you could always go check it if you wish. Or you could ask the person that added it to provide the relevant quote on the talkpage. If the claim was particularly outrageous, you could argue a magazine is not the most reliable of sources. But seeing as there are other sources that suggest White is associated with Scientology, I think the source is adequate. Rockpocket 07:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A.z. loomis

Still gripping on the talk page. This is a huge time sink and starting to become a community issue. They just don't seem to understand. And thanks for reverting my talk page. David D. (Talk) 13:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to see it as a very slow gripe, and not (yet) worth bothering with. A.Z. posted one rant a few days ago; Loomis posted a rant today. They're iffy, and if Loomis doesn't show any interest in actually contributing it certainly wouldn't be a loss to the project if he were blocked, but I'd frankly prefer not to waste our time or attention on them unless necessary. The whole point of trolling is, after all, to get a response. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"The whole point of trolling is, after all, to get a response." Good point. A slow burn might be best here; no need to provide oxygen. David D. (Talk) 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But bear in mind this publication:

William F. Laurance (2003) Slow burn: the insidious effects of surface fires on tropical forests Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18, (5) 209-212

Abstract

Accidental surface fires are emerging as one of the most pervasive threats to tropical forests. Although unimpressive in appearance, these fires can have surprisingly potent impacts on rainforest plant and animal communities, as demonstrated by recent studies led by Jos Barlow and Carlos Peres in central Amazonia. Even worse, surface fires greatly increase the likelihood of far larger conflagrations that can lead to complete forest destruction.

A bit melodramtic, maybe, but interesting non the less. David D. (Talk) 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure its worth acting quite yet. They have both had their say now and hopefully that will be the end of it. If it continues to rumble on, despite the warning to Loomis about leaving Clio alone, then I will block him. Rockpocket 04:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He's back!

Look! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's......Dr Loomis (four degrees). Anyway, he's back! He has me now, seemingly, in a state of nature. In his dreams, Rockpocket; in his dreams! From her Imperial Majesty, the Empress Clio the Muse 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre! That will be the last, you have my word. If this rumbles on I will block Rockpocket 04:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD/AfD suggestion

Thanks for the heads up! Yeah they just strike me as terrible articles (and not to mention there like 4 clones of one of them that got speedied yesterday). I'll take it to AfD for at least one when I get the time/motivation to write it up. Thanks again. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I agree (and I speedy deleted the ones yesterday, they were beyond the pale). Infact I actually deleted these too but then noticed the failed AfD and felt it would not be right to speedy an article that has gone through AfD, so I restored them. Rockpocket 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...I thought about making a redirect to WP:AGF under WP:GABI (Grin And Bear It) :-P. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

e-mail

I sent you an e-mail with a Wikipedia related question hopefully you can respond =)--Migospia †♥ 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hey - I just wanted to know what you thought on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_12#Template:Abuse - because frankly I think it should be split (Relationship abuse, Animal abuse etc.)for ease of use of the templates and for ease of dealing with conflicts, but you probably have more expierience with situations like this so I'd love to know your opinion.--daniel folsom 03:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a huge problem with it as it stands, but as before, it will continue to be used for POV purposes. I'm not sure its value - covering such a range of disparate issues - is with the constant fight its going to be to keep it neutral. Rockpocket 04:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim Binnall

Hiya -- amused by your comment on Talk:Tim Binnall. Do you reckon The Great Wikipedia Conspiracy will be a topic on one of their future podcasts? -- Sjb90 07:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. I hope so. Good spot finding that. Rockpocket 07:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think my favourite line from that forum thread is "Wikipedia people have a notorious reputation for being nit picking aaaassssholes." -- I'm considering putting that on my CV :o) -- Sjb90 07:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And thanks -- it amused me muchly! -- Sjb90 07:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

2 Vandals, sock?

4175shelton and Minimej12 keep adding vandalizing statements in the Animal testing article, like "trolls and other mythical beasts." on one section and on another something about someone being from Mars.--Migospia †♥ 15:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to ER comments

I do see what you mean, and I'll have a think about that. Regarding email - I thought it was enabled as I had ticked the box, but I hadn't specified my address. Oops. Fixed now if you want to contact me. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 15:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Have emailed you. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD(?)

Hey, would you mind taking a look at {{Refimprove}} and telling me whether it's redundant when compared to {{Citations missing}}? I mean, based on what I've seen, the only templates needed for citations are {{unreferenced}} (no references at all) {{Citations missing}} (some), and {{fact}}(in-line) - but you may think otherwise - thanks in advance--daniel folsom 00:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can think of occasions were {{Refimprove}} may be a more appropriate template to use than {{Citations missing}}. I'm not sure those occasions will be so numerous though, as {{Citations missing}} will be fine for the majority of cases, leaving {{Refimprove}} largely redundant. I'm not really sure what the criteria is for deleting templates, since there are plenty of redundancies in templates that we use all the time. I don't have a problem with having them both. Thats just my personal opinion, though, I'm not really sure what our policies have to say on the subject. Rockpocket 00:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, help

Hi thanks for your help with the block. I need some help, a list, that I use and edit frequently has been put up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_black_rock_musicians. And like the Tangeline article getting deleted you offered to WP:USERFY, I was wondering if you could do that here.--Migospia †♥ 03:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind Daniel helped me--Migospia †♥ 04:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving cats

According to talk, everyone seems to have agreed on moving the name for the category, how do we go about moving cats?--Migospia †♥ 07:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Good question, see Wikipedia:Category renaming#Speedy renaming and speedy merging. I'm not sure it would count as meeting the criteria at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, though, so it should probably be listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Rockpocket 07:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe help, Hayley Westenra

Can you keep a close eye and review Hayley Westenra.[4]. I added a category, got reverted once talked on the user's talk page, waited 5 hours and talked on Hayley Westenra's talk page's saying I will revert as I did. The user got back with me on the talk page 7 hours later with one source for my 4, so I said like what happened with Coral Smith if you have two or more sources differing each-other in a way include both, so I included both in my last edit, but if the user has any objections or reverts can you check this out?--Migospia †♥ 23:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please help the user changed it but it makes no sense--Migospia †♥ 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

adoption

I would love to be adopted.

I am a smart woman (no, really, I swear)...just a little dim when it comes to Wikipedia. I understand you may not be looking to adopt, but if not, do you have suggestions re: someone who is calm, a good teacher, clear and kind?

With such thanks! 24.184.192.158 21:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry re: above post

The tildes didn't seem to work, though I was signed in (see what I mean about the 'dim' thing?)

best! Nomoreworldwar (just in case the tildes don't work again) Nomoreworldwar 21:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Troll ?

I'm no troll. I have family over (Summer thing), and they want to ask all manner of questions. Some may be really bizarre, even shocking. Anything I should tell them ? 205.240.144.168 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can this be stated on the Ref. Desk's Talk Page ? Thanks. 205.240.144.168 05:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Celtic F.C.‎

I dont get your logic. You say "British" is higher value than Scottish - but you wont allow just northern European on itsd own even though that is a "higher value than British. You cant have it both ways. Celtic didnt and doesnt represent the British league is represents the Scottish league and northern European is a "bigger value" than British - it just comes across as two admin sticking together and there is he-haw logic or reasoning behind it.--Vintagekits 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Britain is geopolitically discrete, Northern Europe isn't. It is the highest value term we can use that isn't ambiguous. Rockpocket 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, British is confusing as it actually refers to the whole UK not just Britain. Therefore drop the Britain and link Northern European page a if anyone if still confused they can click on the link.--Vintagekits 00:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Banning people who see the flaws in your arguments!

Very constructive.--Vintagekits 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the authority to ban anyone, and have never suggested I could.
It is your lack of understanding of, or willingness to adhere to, policy that I would base my actions on. Specifically WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In the last day or so alone you have addressed editors in the following way:

Unlike you I will not be so impolite as to immediately delete comments from other from my talkpage, so feel free to reply here. However, note that any further comments like those above are not welcome here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Rockpocket 01:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dats cos you are such a nice guy an am jus a poor durty wee fenian I suppose - I just gotta go away an get a wee bitta dignity fur meself. I am considerin a self-imposed five day ban on meself startin fae tamamra - whatcha tink a dat?--Vintagekits 01:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think thats a good idea, if you will use the time to reconsider your belligerent approach to editing with others. Rockpocket 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I shur will sur! I go away and ponder away about the knowledge yer impartin on me, and I'm dead tankful fur it also. I'm shure yal make me a better person by da end a dis.--Vintagekits 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to play childish games like this go do it in a school yard. Its embarrassing. I asked you if you would mind using standard english because I genuinely could not comprehend what you meant by your comment. It may have been Irish slang, it may not, I have no idea, but the highlighted terms are incomprehensible to me:

I'll wait until your friend checkuser wit chunt is over and before I tare strips off this one.

If I can't understand what you are saying, then how am I supposed to respond to it? So, instead of simply clarifying yourself, you go and act the Oirish idiot. Well, I have to say you make a fine job it it. When you've tired of this and wish to act like a mature editor and converse constructively, feel free to come back and I'll discuss it with you. Until then, please find somewhere else to waste your time. Rockpocket 01:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think wit chunt is a typos for witchhunt, SqueakBox 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mibee dis wud be da solution ta da problem!?--Vintagekits 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again (Migospia)

Given the newest problem, I think I need to come to you for advice...

I'm not really sure how to proceed with migospia - part of me is wanting to continue the debate no matter what, with the hope of eventually proving to her that what she's doing is wrong, and then talking her down - because that part of me is thinking that I can easily win any debate with her because policy obviously backs me up - she would run out of arguments pretty quickly. BUT the other part of me is thinking I should just walk away, but the problem is I've done that before, and then she got into another conflict and brought up that situation because she thought me walking away was a sign that she was right. Sorry for making you read all that - but I figured you are involved enough that you might have some input - but if not that's fine, I also will post something simmilar to this on Lsi John's page. Well, here's to hopping for a happy ending, cheers --daniel folsom 18:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can offer anymore than what Lsi John already said here. Personally, I have reached my limited, because I have said everything I could and appear to have had no positive impact on Migospia whatsoever. I just don't think there is any other way I can say the same things. All she wants to hear is that she is correct, and that is not going to happen (because, as we all know, she isn't). So, like John, my opinion is that she can either sink or swim by herself now.

From her latest comments, it appears she has some personal issues that is effecting her editing. That is sad, and of course I sympathise with her, but Wikipedia is not therapy. Some people have been victims for so long that they don't know how not to be a victim; I think a userbox declaring she "thinks or feels he/she is hated by everyone else (or knows it)" tells its own story. So, my honest opinion is that continued discussion with her is just an energy sink, but I hope i'm wrong and if you feel capable of continuing to try, the please do so. Rockpocket 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, while it was a grand gesture for you to ~~strike~~ your remark regarding her unChristian behavior, I don't believe that striking it out was the correct thing to do. She can be hurt all she wants. To me, striking it out means you retract it. Your remark was both accurate and civilized and did not need to be retracted. Her past litany of scathing verbal assaults make your remark look like a glowing compliment. As they say: When you live by the sword, you die by the sword. (whoever they are).

As a Christian, I am embarassed by the way she represents Christianity. Regardless of any challenges she may be having, there is nothing that I have read, in any of my Christian studies, that justifies the rude and mean spirited verbal assaults that she routinely uses against people who are trying to help her. In my opinion, saying that she was behaving in an unChristian way was sugar coating it. And, striking it out, was coddling her. In my experience with her, she is trying to prove that everyone hates her, by driving away everyone who tries to be nice.

I still care about her, and always will, but I will no longer spend time tring to help her. Unless she changes dramatically, the only thing I'll be posting on her page from now on will be policy and rule violation notices, as required before filing violation reports for blocking. Peace in God. Lsi john 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I try to edit by the policy that if something I say on a talkpage is considered hurtful by another editor, even if I believe it to be justified and accurate, then whenever possible I will strike that remark as a gesture of goodwill. Migospia emailed me to indicate she was hurt by that comment and it was not my intention to offend. Since striking it took nothing away from larger point of that post, I felt it was the right thing to do to strike it. Perhaps it is coddling her, but if thats what it takes to make her feel better, then its no great sacrifice for me.

I am not a Christian, therefore its not really my place to judge what is Christian behaviour. But it always amuses me when Wikipedians use their Christian beliefs as some sort of badge of righteousness, as if simply by saying they are, automatically earns some sort of elevated status of civility and goodwill, irrespective of their actual behaviour. It seems to me in advertising one's beliefs in such a forthright manner, one is setting a very high standard that everyone else is entitled to expect of them. I have great respect for editors who act in a manner consistent with their beliefs, but there is nothing more hypocritical in my eyes, than someone who talks the talk, but completely fails to walk the walk. Still, if those people wish to delude themselves that they are a good ambassador for their beliefs, thats their business. Rockpocket 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take a second to address your points. Mostly for the sake of clarity and historical significance.

If I was not clear: I respect you for ~~striking~~ your remarks. It was very commendable and noble gesture. I said that I did not think it was the correct thing to do. I retract that wording. It was the correct, appropriate, and necessary thing to do, from your perspective. My intention was to say that I would not have done it myself, because it was not, in any way, hurtful or mean spirited. Compared to what comes from Migospia, your words were a mother's gentle humming to her sleeping baby. And I believe the email you received was merely a form of 'control and manipulation' (but I digress).
For my part (and for clarity): I disclosed that I am Christian on my talkpage, solely for the sake of disclosure itself. It was not done as a badge of honor, but rather to avoid any perception of hidden adjenda and COI, as well as to establish that I am not a Scientologist. Since I edit Scientology articles from an NPOV perspective, a couple of the anti-CoS editors had concluded that I was a Scientologist. The only reason it has been brought up here, is because it relates to Migospia's claim to "being a Christian" and to "love God more than anything".
While I agree (from a moral perspective) that 'judge' may be the wrong word, I disagree, in spirit, with what you said. I believe we can all evaluate each other, provided it is done from the perspective of what the other 'claims to be'. (i.e. If I claim to be a Christian, you are free to evaluate my actions, from the definition of Christianity, in order to determine whether I am 'walking the walk'). In which case, what you think of Christianity isn't relevant, but whether or not I am 'acting' like what I profess to be is certainly something you are qualified to evaluate. I have long held the belief that we can judge each other, not from our own code of conduct, but, rather, from the other person's declared code of conduct.

For me, it has less to do with the religious label, and more to do with the ethical and moral walk. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is not as much about religion as it is about society and relationships and civility and respect. And, in the context of our discussion, religion plays virtually no role. Migospia's conduct has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Jesus was the Son of God (the core distinction of Christianity). Her conduct has to do with simple incivility and discourteous behavior. And that, has virtually nothing to do with any of the religious aspects of Christianity, and everything to do with the fundamental aspects of 'respect' which is found in virtually every religion.

In the land of LGAT and Personal Responsibilty, it is called 'holding someone accountable'. Hold me accountable for what I say I am. Hold me accountable for what I say I believe. Hold me accountable for the decisions I make and the actions I take. If I request that you treat me with respect, hold me accountable for treating you with respect. etc etc etc.

Thanks for letting me rant on for clarity. I look forward to editing with you in the future. Peace in God. Lsi john 04:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you make very valid points and I appreciate your clarification. To clarify myself, I have no problem with individuals noting their beliefs; full disclosure is always helpful. For the record, I find your behaviour entirely consistent with your beliefs and, as you say, with the level of civility we should all strive to irrespective of religion. It has, likewise, been a pleasure. Rockpocket 05:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is kinda random - but rockpocket you got an email too? I actually got one no more than a week ago that was the reason I kept the debate going last time - like I was so pissed off at its content (and Migospia had advertised it as a "peace letter" when really all it did was criticise you). I hope yours was not as bad - because I think me ranting for days and days after I got that is probably what caused Migospia to get upset at me - but either way, if it wasn't for the occasional good edits - I'm almost starting to think this editor is a you know what. I think I will follow you and Lsi johns' course of action which is to just leave. This is definitley the most frustrating expierience I've had to deal with on Wikipedia - although given how much more expierienced you are than me you've probably dealt with this on a regular basis. But hey, I think everyone can walk away from her knowing that they did their best - but it might just be impossible to talk down a paranoid person - because obviously anyone that attempts to do so is just another person comming after them. Sigh.--daniel folsom 04:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You have fought a good fight, Daniel, and sometimes the only way you win is to walk away. As you say, everyone has gone well beyond the call of duty here, and I know I certainly learned something from it, even if Migospia hasn't. I'm not going to speculate publicly on Migospia's motivations, since no-one can really know and we have only her word. The same thoughts have crossed my mind but I'm willing to WP:AGF that she is on the level. Like Lsi John, my only interaction with her now will be to enforce policy. Lets all move on. 05:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

So, now you're done with VK what about the rest of them? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of NFL Depth Charts

Hi Rockpocket,

I don't know if you remember contacting me about the NFL Team Depth Chart templates but someone has gone in and deleted them all. I posted several explanations as to why these Depth Charts are needed on Wikipedia and I wasn't included in the deletion discussion. Can you help me and arbitrate this issue?

Justvikings 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I tell ya what

If ya really are neutral then sort these editors out. You say that I am a POV editor! Sqeaukbox, Astrotrain and Gibnews and going around (in a meatpuppet fashion) disobeying the agreement on the Northern Ireland page (and talkpage) that the Ulster Banner nor the Union Jack should be used to represent northern Ireland except when it is for sporting organisations that use the flag.--Vintagekits 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, which flag are you proposing should be used instead? Rockpocket 00:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The argeement is that no flag should be used. Now you read that conversation and view the meatpuppet reverting and then wonder why Iget pissed off in this place. --Vintagekits 00:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I entirely understand why you get pissed off. So much so that you felt the need to stack votes against a group of editors, because they follow each other around and vote as a bloc. And if you had said, "yep, I did it, i'm sorry and it won't happen again," Then explained what you did why you felt you needed to do it, this would all be over with after a warning and we would be busy trying to find out who was doing the same thing on the other side. Except instead you began, and indeed you still are, lying about it in the face of overwhelming evidence and attacking everyone else involved who are just doing their job.

Here is what I have been trying to tell you: Wikipedia is incredibly forgiving. We understand that you are not some evil person out to corrupt the place. We understand that other editors use all sorts of devious ways to ensure support, we understand that in the face of that, other editors can feel they have to do the same to even up the playing field. What we want from editors is to realise that there is a third way to tackle these problems, to admit their mistakes and move forward with an intention to not repeating them.

Let me be entirely frank with you. You fucked up and got caught. Thats not going to go away. And because of that, for as long as you continue to pretend it never happened, be incredibly incivil to other editors (even in the face of what you see as provocation) and get involved in contentious edit wars the clock is ticking for you here. That sucks for you, because there most certainly is other people who have done the same sort of thing you did, and they are sitting pretty because they didn't get caught. Yet. So you have a choice, either you can begin to look at the bigger picture here and start to play smart to stay in the game, or you can go out protesting about conspiracies and witch-hunts and everyone else will move on without you. You may not be quite aware how close that time is, so I would make a choice quickly, if I were you.

So, thats how it stands. I'm not inclined to assist people who spit abuse in the face of me editing according to policy, even when its obvious we share many of the same interests. I don't appreciate being referred to as bigoted or a Hun, either. When you start being honest with me, and stop treating me like some sort of idiot, then I will happily work with you and help you address the bigger problem here. It doesn't take a genius to work out where my general sympathies lie in the great sectarian divide, but there difference between us is that I'm not about it to get in the way of policy adherence here. So, start being honest with me and then i'll help you, otherwise you can go shopping for another admin. Rockpocket 01:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no bullshitting ya when I say that I'm not Sligobhoy67, we actually live in different countries, I filled two admin (Will Bebeck and another) what the relationship is between meself and himsef If you email me I will fill you in also. As for the rest of you have said I would be in full agreement. I'm going on a weeks self imposed break anyway cos me heads boiled with all this anyway.--Vintagekits 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be helpful. I do have a few questions that I would like to hear you thoughts on. I genuinely think a break would be a good thing, it may even pre-empt any block that maybe issued, rendering it unneeded. When you come back, it would be really constructive if you would consider adopting a mentor - someone completely independent of the issues - that could counsel you on civility. Sir Fozzie has offered to do this. The reason I say this is because, if you lose your temper and start attacking other editors in the future, the accumulative burden of past incivility is getting to the point where long and/or indefinate blocks are being discussed. Things are going to have to change. However, I guarantee you that if you are able to deal politely with those editors who are in perpetual conflict with you, even when they are not being polite themselves then you will get a lot of support from the administrative community. You are going to have to take the first step, but you can turn this around for the benefit of everyone.

Anyway, enough of my lecturing. I'll drop you an email and in the meantime enjoy your wikibreak. Rockpocket 01:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take Sir Fozzie up on that. I'm off ta bed. Chat to ya later.--Vintagekits 02:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

yea

I hate how you are trying to turn this around and make it seem like I am the bad guy and attack me personally saying how I am unchristian when you don't even know what Christian is about, when I did not do anything wrong in my behaviour its bewildering!--Migospia †♥ 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing the issue you you any further, Migospia. I struck my comment and therefore it is no longer relevant. If you need administrator assistance, I suggest you peruse WP:LA, someone there will help you. Goodbye. Rockpocket 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As an onlooker here, I am stunned you claim to be a Christian. Maybe you should go back and have a look at what you have written over the last few days. David D. (Talk) 07:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John McPhail, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Yomangani ^talk 11:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

People provoking VK

I'm trying to get a handle on VK's various conflicts, so when he comes back things will be smooth sailing, and wanted to get your viewpoint on if this is one of those "It takes two to tango" moments. I would warn user of the NPA rules, but I'm afraid first it would seem as if I'm "Templating the regulars" and also, as VK's mentor, I could be seen as biased. Let me know what you think. SirFozzie 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, this appears to me the be the root of the problem. The relationship between these groups of editors is so poor, that uncivil accusations are the norm on both sides. Its difficult to know "who started it" and whether it will be possible to get them all to stop it. In some ways I feel sorry for VK, because he is attracting a lot of admin attention over similar comments, while it appears his perpetual opponents escape sanction. Nevertheless, provocation is no excuse, especially when it isn't entirely clear who is provoking who. I think the comments there are unacceptable, quite frankly, and would have no problem with having a word with Gibnews and making it clear VK will be held to better standards in future and therefore he should also. I understand your role with VK may complicate issues, so I'll have a word with Gibnews myself. If you would prefer that I make the request requests in the future, just ask. I'm happy to help out. Rockpocket 05:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

SHAC and Dresdner BANK

Hi Rockpocket, you are correct the reference is from SHAC and not Dresdner, however in my experience SHAC's statements are reliable, I will update the reference when the moneycentral shareholder reports are published at the end of the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.248.164 (talk • contribs)

Hi. While I don't doubt the SHAC article in accurate in reporting the bank dumped their shares, we nevertheless need to adhere to WP:RS. My concern is the phrase "[the bank]issued a statement to the effect that they had sold all of their shares after pressure from the SHAC campaign." Did they really? Did the bank actually say, "we gave in to pressure for SHAC"? If not, what does "to the effect" actually mean? For this cause/effect statement to remain we need to source the statement from the bank rather than SHAC's interpretation of it. Rockpocket 17:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Loomis blew it

Hey, I've re-indefblocked Loomis51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and protected his talk page because a) he's violated the terms of his unblock, b) he hasn't made any non-Clio-related edits for the better part of a month, and c) because it seemed like a solution that would make him happy, since he can rest warm and comfortable in the snug blanket of his persecution fantasy.

Just thought you'd appreciate the heads-up. Good on you for trying to bring him back, but sometimes 'You can lead a horse to water...'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for letting me know. I have no objections whatsoever, indeed, I was following the recent discussion with thoughts of re-instating the block myself. I think its fair to say that everyone's patience is thoroughly exhausted by his behaviour. Time to move on. Rockpocket 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits

I believe that there has recently been some discussion about puppetry and Vintagekits in the administrative areas of WP. Please would you be kind enough to supply a static reference or diff. so that I can peruse these comments as I may have something factual and relevant to contribute. Thank you in advance for your co-operation in this matter...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 02:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Willie McStay (1920s footballer)

Thanks for your comments and congratulations for getting John McPhail selected for WP:DYK - great to see something pertaining to Scottish football on the main page.

On the subject of Willie McStay, Lamming's book states he played in the US but annoyingly not for which club, nor do other sources I could find. Bethlehem Steel F.C. or Fall River F.C. seem the most likely candidates, as they appear to have been the most prolific importers of Scottish players. Caledonian Place 15:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find out that much more on Billy McPhail, other than that he seems to have moved from the Spiders to Clyde in 1947, as I've seen him listed in a QP team in Nov 46 but playing for Clyde in the early part of the 47-48 Lge cup, and that his middle name began with an S. On a trivial note, it could be included that he was the player Willie Woodburn decked to receive his 2nd suspension in 1953.

If you are really keen for more detail on him, you could try asking at this forum - the user "LEATHERSTOCKING" is an eminent Queens Park historian. Caledonian Place 19:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:68.40.253.199

Hey Rockpocket - could you keep an eye on this user - I told him to be civil at which point he said I was singling him out and he would continue to be incivil to the liberals (who are obviously out to get him). It's a weird situation - but I don't think there's anything I can say to change his mind.--daniel folsom 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would love to be adopted

and you are soooo sweet for the offer.

I really am a novice, barely a toddler. Just let me know how you would like to proceed--where we'd communicate...with great appreciation Nomoreworldwar 12:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

hi

Can you look at this Northern Ireland flags issue User:Astrotrain is removing relevent info from this and other articles, and edit warring, he refuses to discuss changes in the talk pages, he has been blocked before for this. He has also breached WP:3RR on this Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations.--padraig3uk 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On June 28, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Billy McPhail, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hampden in the sun, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Leucism

An intro to an article can repeat data that occurs later in the article. I believe it is significant enough to mention that Leucism is not Albinism in the opening sentence. I have re-reverted.-Ravedave 05:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD generally covers articles that are long enough to require a summary style intro, not to repeat info in short articles that are little more than an intro in entirety. Moreover, Leucism is not a lot of things. For example, as well as not being albinism it is not piebaldism and it is not melanism. In other words we should say what a condition is, not what it isn't. Rockpocket 05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Leucism is often confused with albinism, which is what I was trying to resolve. Your revised sentance is copasetic. -Ravedave 05:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, and copasetic is a very interesting word that I shall hitherto strive to use. Thanks. Rockpocket 05:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a great word, one of my co-workers uses it and it just sort of bores it's way into your brain. -Ravedave 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, no confusion!

Recently, you had some dealings with Vantagekits. When you edit in common pages, such as AN/I or RFCU, please do not use abbreviations, such as VK! VK35 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was Vintagekits. There is no User:VK, so as long as Vintagekits' full name is mentioned somewhere in the thread its hard to see how someone could be misled. The use of abbreviation is not uncommon here on Wikipedia, however your concern is duly noted. Rockpocket 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

adoption

Hey Rockpocket:

thanks for offering to adopt me (nomoreworldwar talk page)--I would love to be adopted. I never noticed a response to my request at going on about this--on your talk page...which could definitely have been my messup...

But I would like to proceed further and would appreciate hearing further.

Until I hear from you!

My very very best, Nomoreworldwar 09:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Sayre

Hello, Rockpocket. Can I please ask you to cast an editing eye over the above page, newly created, wikify and otherwise improve as you see fit? It was created in response to a former question on the Humanities Desk. I've also asked Ghirla to have a look at it. Things move on, my dear Rockie; things move on! All the very best from Clio the Muse 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:

Alright. -PatPeter 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)