User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25


Massacres

The totally predictable edits have been made as predicted by the expected editors. Warring is in full spate. Please have a look. Sarah777 (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please have a look at this blind revert where the person in question didn't even look at what they were reverting to in the first place! One Night In Hackney303 06:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Jesus, Sarah. Couldn't you just stay out of it? I'm on the warring, and joining with a blind revert to a clearly worse version really doesn't help. Rockpocket 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a blind revert - it was a mistaken revert to the wrong place - shoot me. These guys are now claiming the London Indo isn't reliable as well as RAI. Apologies for interfering but it didn't look like anyone was in charge. I will retire to self-imposed exile for 24 hours. Again. Sarah777 (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't tempt me :) The London Indo is reliable, except there's a slight problem. See this footnote? It's from May 2003, but it's referencing a massacre from November 2004. I'm not editing the page again as it'll just look like an edit war, but someone ought to fix it.... One Night In Hackney303 06:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason it doesn't look like anyone is "in charge" is because dealing in inappropriate reverting by reverting the edits is entirely counter-productive. Interacting with the people doing the reverting - convincing them to seek more constructive avenues - is the only way this is going to stop. The problem at the moment is the IP and I have left a warning for him or her to ask them to take their points to the talk-page. If, in the meantime, the other editors can remain disciplined and sit on their hands when they feel a revert coming on, then all the better. ONiH, by all means fix that source, but leave a note on the talk page explaining why. If anyone reverts such an obviously good edit then they should better have a damn good reason for it... Rockpocket 06:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well the problem isn't just that one source. This is the current version. There's three references tagged as unreliable (no position on that, not even looked at them), the above Independent which has to go, and this (dated 21 October 2004) and this (dated 12 April 2004). The Second Battle of Fallujah didn't start until 7 November 2004 apparently, so I'm struggling to work out exactly what's going on with that version at all. The previous version seemed much better sourced (especially as PBS who seemed to be opposed to Fallujah going in had added it) although I've not looked at it in detail, but I don't want to just revert to the previous version again as it'll just look like I'm edit warring. One Night In Hackney303 06:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, ONiH, but I'm not touching any content, as it would simply lead to accusations of bias if I every protected the article or took action for edit-warring. My suggestion is WP:BRD. Be bold, make your change and then explain why, specifically, you made on the talk page (or better still, explain it first then make the change) If it is reverted, let it be and ask for a point by point reasoning. If the person can't provide one then, hopefully, someone else will see it was an unhelpful revert and undo it. Rockpocket 07:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"How can indymedia and democracynow be used as reliable cites?" That may well be an interesting question, but it's a more interesting question to ask why ask it and revert to the version that uses them as sources at the same time? Words fail me..... One Night In Hackney303 16:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Words fail me too. Part of the problem is that people are objecting to the same thing for different reasons, and the other part is that people are reverting based on who made an edit, rather than looking at the contents. WP:JACK comes to mind. Its not helping that IPs, with either a limited understanding of policy or a limited regard for it, are getting involved. I'm going to try and deal with the IPs first (and if that doesn't work then semi-protection may be an option). I'm hoping the more established editors can work together to assist in this. Thanks for your help, ONiH, your edits are a good example of when reverts are justified. Rockpocket 21:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I've just identified one of the problems here. One Night In Hackney303 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Recognise these references? The Independent one from 2003 was taken out in a subsequent edit admittedly, but that still leaves it only sourced by unreliable references or ones that refer to different events in Fallujah. It seems pointless to even try and fix this article. One Night In Hackney303 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

how do you determine if an editor is an administrator?

How do you determine if an editor is an administrator? Abd spends far too much time focusing on making judgments about other editors in talk. Are administrators held to a higher standard then editors? You can have a look on the adhd talk page but recently in the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies talk page.--scuro (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rockpocket for your prompt, informative, and reasoned response. Part of the issue is that the article is a controversy article. What exactly is the Wiki policy on controversy articles? I have read several things about controversy but in my mind the whole area seems more gray then any other policy section in Wikipedia. Links for for further reading would be much appreciated. Does undo weight still apply to such an article? Recently the general definition of ADHD was deleted from the intro because, "if the article is about "controversies" the lede sentence should reflect that, there is already an ADHD article that leads with the definition". Also how do you deal with fringe opinion on a controversy article?..or any opinion piece on a controversy article. Editors argue that self published material and fringe material is allowed because, "controversy articles are all about opinions, period". Does a controversy article have a different set of rules from other articles? Perhaps part of the fault is mine due to ignorance. --scuro (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought you would find this interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29 --scuro (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Rock this IP is edit warring on two Troubles related articles. I have made them aware of the 3RR on their talk page, though I feel they know the rules as much as we do. Could you possibly ask them to stop, or suggest a check user. Thanks, --Domer48 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rock, I did not know that a 3RR was posted against this editor here. They are just a time waster, and have been reported before for this. Any ideas? --Domer48 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats the same IP range again, that was edit warring on the NI politics templates.--Padraig (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Mmmmm. Looks we we have a problem editor all right. My feeling is that the best option may be to leave a message on a few article talk pages informing the person who edits from that range that their contributions are problematic and, if they don't discuss rather than revert, then their edits will be reverted on sight and their IP blocked. If that doesn't work to discourage them (since the person can always jump to another IP) then we may have to look at semi-protecting the articles. That, at least, would enforce them to create an account, that we can deal with. What do you think? Rockpocket 22:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
We can try that but the problem I see is that this seems to be a established editor using anon IPs to avoid arbcom probation, I have a good idea who it is as this IP range was involved in blindly reverting my edits before and checkuser produced a possible for that editor, maybe another checkuser may reveal something. Semi-protection would help on any article that they edit war on.--Padraig (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is anything we can do about that unless a checkuser could be convinced to accept such a request. I guess we could always try. Could you direct me to the previous checkuser that produced a possible match (feel free to email it if you would prefer) and I'll look into it further? Rockpocket 09:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As an interim measure semi-protect would appear to be the practical approach, if or when they start edit warring again. This would only be a short term solution to what could possibly be a long term problem editor[s]. It would in my opinion help a great deal, if editors who would have been active in having such edits included were the ones to revert or report such incidents. This would send a clear message to the IP’s, that we no longer agree with such behaviour and as a community prefer more productive and less disruptive ways of addressing differences. --Domer48 (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The "war criminal"

Tricky one this. It's definitely got plenty of coverage for a minority view, for example The Times, The Herald, The Sunday Herald, The Daily Record, The Irish Times and The Sunday Mail. I'm thinking it's probably best preceded with the details of the majority he received at the AGM, and the protesters seem to be variously described as "one fan", "some fans" or (relating to other protests) "anti-war protesters" (who may or may not even be Celtic fans). The "Celtic Trust" are described as involved in various sources including this as well. Thoughts? One Night In Hackney303 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My strategy over these sorts of things is generally to request citations to see if the person who added the material will come back with them. If not, I re-write and source it myself in a day or two. I think the part about the "ultras" can go, but the opposition to his appointment is certainly relevant. As you say, it may be better couched in terms of the proportion of the AGM vote for and against, with the quoted accusation leveled among the opposers. Rockpocket 00:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

wotcha

thanks rockpocket, you are right an amazing hospital, one that has changed my life for the better, thanks again for your kibd words, and now that we have a 'putor n thi band, i hope to be at wiki more often, although mrs mankster has just asked if she can check her e-mail...adiousPerry-mankster (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Further Edit-warring by the Admin Philip Shearer

Please note his removal of the Kilwarlin woods massacre which I have restored. When are you going to describe his activities as what they are? I notice no lectures directed at him. I am left no choice but to combat this POV; I trust you will refrain from characterising my edits as "warring" and deal with the actual culprits. Sarah777 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To my mind there is a WP:OWN issue here. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Rockpocket; could you replicate the speed you exhibited when I made a mistaken reversion a couple of days ago? WP:OWN hardly begins to describe Philip's attitude; he is EDIT WARRING. Are you going to do anything about - or would you rather wait till I restore my changes and target me? Response please. Sarah777 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I live in a very different time zone to you, Sarah. As much as I care about this project, I don't care enough to get up in the middle of the night to ensure I can "replicate the speed" of my contributions to everyone's satisfaction. I have asked Philip to lay off the revert button also (he has been flirting with 3RR, though mainly because he has been reverting additions with no sources whatsoever).

I am at a loss at how to proceed here without being overly draconian. Your raft of edits which Philip partially reverted were bold, certainly, and I think he was entitled to reverted per WP:BRD. What should happen next is you guys should discuss the issues point by point and come to some sort of consensus. The fact that ONiH, who is certainly not an anti-Irish editor, expressed concerns at the apparent inconsistencies in your approach should perhaps signal that third party opinion should perhaps be sought before you re-include that material.

This might also be a good time to reconsider that AfD nomination. Rockpocket 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are my additions are considered "bold"? They are referenced as well as many Philip didn't touch. You reckon that in 800 years of Irish History - (when in the mid-17th and again in the mid-19th centuries the Gaelic population was halved through the deliberate actions of the invaders) - that the only massacre was of the settlers in 1641! There were thousands and I intend to add as many as I can reference. ONiH is refusing (Philip style) to state his "rules" for good references; which would be rather more helpful than sniping from the sidelines. Sarah777 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm pointing out that your rules justify removing non-Irish massacres for lack of "MSM" sources while adding Irish massacres without "MSM" sources. One Night In Hackney303 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note IP 86.158.222.63 is now on his eight straight revert on Bloody Sunday; List of massacres. Where are the police when you need one? Oh, btw, Hackney has started a bit of warring himself. There is something about this article..... Sarah777 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've started no warring. I've made two edits to the article today. This was to remove sources that refer to the 2006 bombing, not the 1996 bombing. This was to remove Fallujah once it was only sourced by an article written before the event took place. Why did this happen? Because someone decided to add Fallujah back with crappy references like indymedia or articles written before the event took place. I'm trying to clean up the mess, I'm not the one causing it.... One Night In Hackney303 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You deleted the entire entry because some of the many references were wrong; that is edit-warring. Adopting that approach I could delete at least half the article right now. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No, check the edit, the diff is right there above. When I removed it, there was only one reference which was published before the event. Therefore it had zero references. One Night In Hackney303 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, if you are acknowledging some of the references were wrong, why keep reverting to version with those references? You keep complaining that others are edit-warring (and, indeed, some of them are though ONiH is not one of those people) then do exactly the same thing yourself. If you stopped adding Indymedia as a source (I count about 3 times you have done this now), then others wouldn't keep removing it and there would be less edit-warring. I'm not trying to pick on you here, as I've said many times before it takes more than one to edit war, but you keep lecturing others for doing exactly what you are doing yourself. Rockpocket 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with Indymedia. Note that ONIH, by his own admission, deleted the entire entry based on an indirect ref to RAI even though he was fully aware that the RAI ref existed. (It had got lost in the warring). So I don't accept that he isn't warring. Now also note that Philip has broadened his warring to Irish Rebellion of 1641 to support his contention that the Kilwarlin Woods Massacre is not well supported. That is the hazard of using Wiki articles as a reference; which I think is not a good idea in this article. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)No, I didn't. Can't you even check a diff? This diff right here! And in case you still can't actually tell what I removed, here is the entirety of it:
|-
|2004 November
|[[Fallujah]], [[Iraq]]
|Fallujah massacre
|600–3,000{{Fact|date=January 2008}}
|Alleged massacre of civilians in Fallujah by the US Marine Corps during an attack on the city.
<ref>[[Giuliana Sgrena]]. [http://www.ilmanifesto.it/pag/sgrena/en/42160c8c20e81.html Flight from a Falluja massacred by bombs] Accessed 26 December 2007</ref>
Now let's click on http://www.ilmanifesto.it/pag/sgrena/en/42160c8c20e81.html shall we? What is that date in the top right hand corner? 21 October 2004 isn't it? Now, when did the alleged Fallujah massacre take place? Novemer 2004. Therefore the ONE source that was in the article did not even refer to the same event. Now who was it that added back that pointless reference in the first place? Oh, it was you wasn't it? Moral of the story - stop adding back unreliable sources or sources that don't even refer to the same event. Take some responsiblity for your own actions, as the problems are being caused by you. One Night In Hackney303 00:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My God! How did the entry lose all its refs? Endless deletion. You knew there were good refs (ones I had myself sourced ages ago) yet you simply deleted the entry. Sarah777 (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidance

Hello Rockpocket, I am Gaurang Jadia. I have registered with wikipedia since May 2006 but started editing actively from November 2007. I have edited and created near around 250 articles. I have learnt basic things by reading guiding articles. But, I still don't know properly about wikipedia projects. How projects are initialized and executed? Who are administrator? and what kind of authority they have? How to scale article and how to write article, which can qualify for feathered article! How to encourage other wikipedian for editing? How to earn wikipedia awards and who give awards? I stumbled to your user page and found that you can help me to evolve as better wikipedia. Hope you will reply with guidance. Gaurang | Talk 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not you too!

Where are all the good guys going? Clio the Muse (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As our esteemed Governor once said: I'll be back. There have just been a few incidents recently that took much of the fun out of it for me. so I'm going to recharge my wiki-batteries for a while. When that is done, I'll return. Rockpocket 08:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Enjoy your break, Rockpocket. If anyone deserves one, you do. Not that being here is any kind of onerous duty - or shouldn't be - but we all need time out once in a while. Go well, and when you get back, I wonder if you'd report back to me on what roses smell like - I seem to have forgotten. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, we all deserve a break now and then! Agreed though, and thank you for your words of encouragement and comfort. Best wishes, Rockpocket. I'm looking forward to seeing the green signature again. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Tuesday is good-news-day. First, Adam's book, and now the green signature. Welcome back, Rockpocket! ---Sluzzelin talk 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I love little green men. Welcome back! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I followed up a bit on the events unfolding in another corner where you're active. I'm quite upset about you of all people having been the target of methods cowardly and disgusting, but relieved that you're still here. If my loved one was mentioned, called, contacted, whatever, in connection with this crazy labyrinth of wiki-fools ... bing, that would be the last you ever heard of me. It' good that you're different and won't let this kind of person get their violent way. Peace. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Rockpocket. I'm sorry to hear you're feeling jaded; sometimes I find a few hours or a few days away from Wikipedia can be a blessing. Sometimes when I'm feeling wiki-bonked I look at this page to cheer myself up.

Anyway, enough idle chit chat. Per your challenge, I must be eligible for some sort of barnstardom. You know, (hint hint) that while I created the Football Barnstar, I have never been awarded it? Not that I mean anything by that. You might well deem a Nobel Peace Prize more in order. Whatever you think. Nothing at all is fine. Hope you're keeping well. --John (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shameless... quite shameless! (Don't encourage him!)--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks Rockpocket. Major is quite right; that was utterly shameless of me. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry - it's more of a labour of Hercules than a Barnstar job. I think, in fairness, though, we should change your User Name to Shameless John. (And doesn't Rockpocket deserve one too... although it might be a bit... you know?)
Here's some unintentional humour for you: a post by me on Sarah's Talk page, here, and someone gets quite the wrong end of the stick.
I'm sorry that you're feeling a bit down, and you seem to be having stalker trouble. Keep up the good work! Best wishes,--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Re your last post on my talk page. That’s sound Rock; thanks for that, and hopefully the IP will play silly beggar some were else. I hope to see you back soon, and with any luck things will have quietened down. At the moment things are quite, and everyone just seems to be getting on with their own things. I’m putting two articles together at the minute, and hope to post them up soon, so I have not been on as much. I think that we may all be suffering from a little burnout also and that is to be expected. So take it handy and enjoy the break and I hope to see you back soon. Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a moment

I wrote this article, see if you can improve it. Take care, --John (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

another one

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Neural system viruses (perhaps archived by the time you read this) seems to have led to Neurotropic virus. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have email, Sir!

I must say, this came as a shock to me, learning the history behind this just today.. I thought this whole thing was complicated enough, but today's learning was an added layer behind the whole thing! SirFozzie (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Foz. As you say, that pretty much seals the deal. I just hope others see it as the sign that they need to clean up their act also, rather than an opportunity to dance on a grave. Rockpocket 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Alison

Hihi

Saw you were busy reverting the changes to Alison's page so I tossed a report on 69.182.189.139 up on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism...didn't mean to step on your toes, didn't know you are an admin and could have taken care of it yourself...sorry!!! Legotech (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Argh, there's a guy with a buttload of IPs doing that...doesn't he have anything better to do??? Geez...lemme know if I can do anything to help. Legotech (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I went to block the first but he had jumped IP twice before I even manged it! Semi-protection is the way forward until he gets bored, I think. I'm heading off-line myself for a while, so if you are sticking around, if you could keep your eyes open for more activity from this IP range, and report it at AIV, that would be great. Thanks for your help. Rockpocket 08:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both :) I just found this now ... thanks for looking out for me - Alison ❤ 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Highgate Rabbit Farm

I understand your concern that the breeder in question is similar to Consort Beagles or Regal Rabbits, although I would like to state that the more noteable difference is that the latter two businesses are closed and Highgate Farm is still open. The owner has even spoken out which I think is a relevant factor in this issue.

Because there is a list of Laboratory animal suppliers in the United Kingdom, I thought it would only be relevant to host HGF as one of vivisections suppliers, just like Harlan has been, as this was also exposed through an animal liberation raid.

I do understand that Consort and Regal were indeed very poor articles with very little information or detail what so ever. Considering there are chapters in the book "From Dusk 'til Dawn" (http://fromdusktildawn.org.uk) regarding the places and there have been various newspaper reports I am extremely suprised that there is not a more substantial article, given the size of the campaign agains the businesses.

I don't think this is a case of "last place raided", as the issue now is that breeders for vivisection are now very rarely raided, mainly due to security and also because there are only a few left (B&K, Harlan, Porton Down & Highgate Farm). So surely if there is substantial evidence regarding the businesses they are worthy of a wikipage? Especially with the number of breeders that have been closed, the number that are now open should be a very relevant factor and detailed so.

I hope this explains the issue further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untilallarefree (talk • contribs) 08:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Brendan Hughes

As you're online, can you semi-protect this article please? There's a request of RFPP for it. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 09:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved
And I haven't forgotten the other issue we discussed this week. That is for tomorrow. Your input may also be helpful here, to head trouble off at the pass for our mutual friend. Rockpocket 09:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to post there for about 15 minutes, but my PC is busdy doing all sorts of things and I've been constantly edit conflicted. Thanks for the protection, when it comes to people's deaths we need to err on the side of caution. I saw various announcements of it last weekend in various places, which were hastily retracted a few hours later. No rush on the other issue, it isn't anything that requires immediate attention. One Night In Hackney303 09:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed by the BBC, you might want to unprotect now? One Night In Hackney303 10:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres

I realise you may agree with his proposed solution, but that isn't my point. Not by any reasonable standard can John claim "consensus" for his dictate. Could you please point that out to him? Also note that he wilfully misinterpreted my response to another editor where I used the term "Anglo-American" to imply I was "battling" when it is very clear that I am striving to achieve WP:NPOV by opposing his proposed rules which will make an acknowledged source of bias even worse. If Wiki itself admits that such bias exists and is a problem I would expect better than sneering dismissals of the idea from an Admin who has set himself up as judge, jury and executioner in relation to this article, which is all about POV. Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What would you have me do, Sarah? How one decides what is or what is not at consensus among a quorum of less than 10 is of course open to debate, but John is left with two options: do nothing and return to indefinite edit warring, or do something that at least a majority seems content to work with, and see if that can stop the edit-warring. Its not difficult to see why he went ahead as he did. Within that context I understand his language, "consensus" is relative.
You feel that the current plan favours an Anglo-American/Western perspective. I'm not sure I agree, but even if it did, what do you intend to do about it. Look around, the entire site favours an Anglo-American/Western perspective, thats what happens when the majority of your editors are Anglo-American/Western! Do you think the Arabic Wikipedia may not have its own biases. Such is the way of the world, and Wikipedia is no different.
I don't think this solution is perfect, essentially all it does is diffuse the arguments to a large number of different articles. But perhaps it will dilute the dispute enough that it stops being as problem. My opinion is that an arbitrarily limited article better than what we we had before, a disruptive free-for-all with no end in sight. I still would favor deleting the whole damn thing, though. Rockpocket 08:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
By diffusing the "problem" to other articles means that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) comes into play, so it's not causing as many problems as you might think. One Night In Hackney303 08:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
True enough, the problem comes with the borderline ones that are open to discussion. The question is, will the principles discuss or revert to type (pun intended). Rockpocket 08:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Was that a rhetorical question? One Night In Hackney303 10:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres; update

Well, again re your challenge, we are making good progress on the article with the criteria Tyrenius suggested and we agreed with your support. There has so far been no edit-warring; instead I have rather enjoyed adding a few to the article myself. I wanted to say how much I appreciated your confidence in asking me, and your continuing support in the discussions that have taken place. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff, John. I think you, supported by Ty and ONiH, have tackled this in exactly the way it needed: in a goal oriented manner. I tend to get a bit bogged down in trying to get personalities to get along, by stick or carrot, and lose sight of the goal. You never know, play your cards right and there may be another 'star in this for you yet ;) But seriously, thanks for taking this on, you bailed me out at a point when I was struggling - I appreciate that. Rockpocket 07:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Domers page

On reflection I have removed this section, because the subject is not in a position to offer his response. I'll delete the diff on request. Rockpocket 06:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeats speaks . . .

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
from: W. B. Yeats "The Second Coming", 1921
៛ Bielle (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Rockpocket, Bielle's selection of The Second Coming as a comment on your troubles is just so apt, particularly in its allusion to the worst being full of passionate intensity; and you have had to deal, it would seem, with the worst of the worst: the real dregs. My past troubles, with which you are only too well acquainted, are nothing compared with yours. For some loathsome creature to trouble and harass your family is despicable beyond words. I am moved by your simple determination not to be defeated; your decision not to quit Wikipedia in a mood of complete disgust; and therein, I think, lies your true victory: the true test of your courage and worth.

Let me assure you that Clio will always assist you here where she can; with facts and with arguments, or anything else that may be necessary. She is there, to be called upon, at the head of the English Ironsides, your loyal ally and friend. As far as that particular sub-faction in the Irish Republican movement you have had to deal with is concerned, their ugly and stupid fanaticism, their determination to forever dwell on old, unhappy far off things and battles long ago, you may be interested in some lines of verse thought to have been penned by Brendan Behan, himself no stranger to the vagaries of Irish nationalist politics. It was written in the 1950s after the IRA had blown up the statue of Lord Gough, a British general, in Dublin's Phoenix Park. The poem, a comment on the stupid futility of the act, concludes as follows;

'Neath the horse's big prick a dynamite stick

Some gallant 'hayro' did place,

For the cause of our land, with a match in his hand

Bravely the foe he did face;

Then without showing fear - and standing well clear -

He expected to blow up the pair

But he nearly went crackers, all he got was the knackers

And he made the poor stallion a mare!


For his tactics were wrong, and the prick was too long

(the horse being more than a foal)

It would answer him better, this dynamite setter,

The stick to shove up his own hole!

For this is the way our 'haroes' today

Are challenging England's might,

With a stab in the back and a midnight attack

On a horse that can't even shite!

Love and good wishes. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. Thanks for that Clio. I'm comforted to know I have such steadfast support by my side. Whoever is behind these acts, I would almost feel sorry for them if Clio were to set her sights on them!
As you know, my world is a long, long way away from the parochial disputes of those Islands. Despite what some anonymous coward would have you believe, I barely knew the PIRA from the UVF before someone came to me with some damning evidence and a plea for help. Indeed, my background is marked by an altogether different dispute, on a distant continent, one that puts the horrors of even the Troubles in perspective. I know you can appreciate that, Clio. I have learned a lot, though, in the last year or so. In that time I have watched while empty threats were issued and childish insults spat in the name of 20th century chauvinism, from the anonymity of a 21st century computer. Behan had it right, for this is the way our 'haroes' today. Rockpocket 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you've got my best wishes as well. There's no intrinsic difference between the PIRA and the UVF - they're both a bunch of bastards. I'm rather reluctantly coming round to your 'zero tolerance' opinion; what is it about this project that turns perfectly sensible people into foaming-at-the-mouth nutters? (I include myself in this, but at least I'm honest - look at my User name). At the other end of all your harassment is probably some socially inadequate 14-year old. My suggestion is to buy an elephant rifle for 'home defense' purposes and then put the whole thing out of your mind as much as possible. Yours, --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Check out the real world Bonkers. Wiki reflects the conflicts, it doesn't cause them! Sarah777 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, Sarah. I think it was John who used to have a User box which included his results from the Political Compass test, and showed him to hold almost the exact opposite of my own opinions. I dare say that you and I wouldn't see eye to eye politically either, and yet all three of us manage to rub along somehow. Why is this: maturity? a university education (in which you are required to confront other opinions and argue from logic)? I strongly suspect that poor old Rockpocket's alleged crime is that he's been fair but completely firm, insisting on upholding the various policies, and that if it wasn't him getting a load of abuse it'd be either Kittybrewster or myself.

Why should we passively accept abuse online because this is a reflection of a wider conflict? When you post on Wikipedia, take you knuckle-dusters off!

There's an article in the latest edition of 'Wired' magazine (Mutilated Furries, Flying Phalluses: Put the Blame on Griefers, the Sociopaths of the Virtual World), which ends with this:


On the other hand, I can quite understand why someone might not be quite so phlegmatic after receiving a message like that.

On my hugely long list of 'To Do' things is to post some historical facts and my observations about the Irish and British. Perhaps I'll wait until everyone is nicely settled again before I insert that particular stick of dynamite where the sun don't shine, though!--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As one who often drank with Brendan Behan's brother, Dominic Behan, the Vintagekits dispute has nothing to do with Britain or Ireland, or the Troubles for that matter. Unfortunately some of the Admins have made that connection. I don't know what Vintagekits politics are, and I don't give two "knackers". Strange how all this is being shoveled up again, when it was supposed to be in the past. Vintage is blocked for voting with a sock. I think the troubles are over in Northern Ireland, Wikipedia take note! 78.19.73.33 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah! :) - Alison ❤ 01:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Major, I think you have hit this particular nail on the head. Some of my most trustworthy and respected colleagues on this site are about about as politically and ideologically different from me as is possible. Indeed, my proudest moment is being nominated for adminship by someone that I had spent 90% of my time in disagreement with. 78.19.73.33, this thread was not in response to the "Vintagekits dispute". It is because someone has taken it upon themselves to harass me both on and off-wiki me with allegations of various things including being "Orange" and a "bigot" and using Republican rhetoric. So, unless you are privy to the contents of those messages, I don't think you are in a position to judge that this has "nothing to do with Britain or Ireland." Rockpocket 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair points, which I will digest. But I must also point out to you that I can only go by what I read on your page. It's all very depressing, and maybe very shallow too!! It wasn't so much your comments, but comments by others, that you accepted as fact. That also was depressing. 78.19.73.33 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you can not be expected to react to that which you are unaware of. But if you are not aware of what is going on, why would you find yourself commenting on my talk page at all? I'm not sure exactly what you find shallow, or what I accepted as fact that your find depressing, so I'll decline to comment on that. If you would like to elaborate I will consider it further. Rockpocket 06:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm aware of this. Because of your recent writings, it's rather strange and shallow on your part, if not depressing for Wikipedia that an administrator (you) should leave advice about equipping themselves with firearms on their talk page, and not to take it as a personal attack against other editors. If you were really true to your word, no doubt you should have taken your first opportunity to delete the offending edits, an even issue a warning. But you failed in that respect. Are you indulging in the very act that you have seeked to accuse others of? 78.19.137.228 (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have an issue with The Major advocating the purchase of a firearm for personal protection (something that is perfectly legal and not uncommon in my jurisdiction), then I suggest you take it up with him. Personally, I took his comment with the flippancy I believe it was meant in ("elephant rifle"?) and any suggestion it is a personal attack is ludicrous, in my opinion. Look, with all due respect, 78.19.137.228, you can always find something to be offended with if you look hard enough. Why you chose to come to my talk page and then express such concern at something so trivial reminds me of another editor. That one decided that an off the cuff remark I made in jest about "fiery temper" was a racist remark, and incidentally Major Bonkers was a firm supporter of me on that occasion. That editor is now banned. So if your only aim is to agitate then I'd appreciate it of you would take your concerns elsewhere. Thank you. Rockpocket 00:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Or his stick of dynamite "before I insert that particular stick of dynamite where the sun don't shine", or semtex. Which would you prefer. Very revealing, shame. 78.19.2.57 (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And was Vintagekits's not a metaphor too? Above the law Rock? Eh!! 78.19.2.57 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that threat the User:Major Bonkers copied above is the most disturbing combination of words I have ever read, anywhere, and I am neither young nor disconnected from the evils of this world. I may just have too vivid an imagination, but I am still shaking. I want to drive all night, doing the rounds, to see that all my grandchildren are safe, and to ask everyone else I know to check on theirs. I wonder if that child will ever read this. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Having read that article in full, I think another quote is perhaps most relevant: "The challenge is sorting out the consequential from the not-so-much.". In my particular case, there is not-so-much to worry about. My real life job, and that of my wife, comes with its own risks that are much more real than empty threats from an irate Irish Republican (she had a nail bomb planted in her place of work a few months back and both of us have been followed and photographed). Those people could not persuade me to invest in an elephant gun (though, as a fan of Tom Sharpe, I can't say I haven't fantasized over it!), so I don't think this will. No, my anger is borne out of principle, and the knowledge that that are people on Wikipedia who have had to endure serious consequences from harassers.
What I have learned about that, since this began, has led me to believe we have to do more to protect our volunteers. This is partly why I have developed such low tolerance for on-wiki incivility, attacks and abuse, because that is some thing we can do something about to try and ensure WP doesn't turn into the place where people will accept such horrid threats with a shrug. It may help weed out those people who would take it further before they get so invested and fixated on the poor admin who had the misfortune to try and deal with them. Rockpocket 06:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
For a while, I've been thinking about writing two essays: Wikipedia:Why would anyone want to become an administrator? and Wikipedia:Why would anyone want to edit controversial topics?. Indeed, the verbal and procedural abuse alone would be enough to scare most people away from either activity, not to mention stalkers and nail bombs(?!?!) Sheesh! Nice perspective. Yeah, I think I'll stick to editing articles on insignificant Swiss villages, little known and uncontroversial artists and musicians, helping out at the desks, tweaking good faith edits, and reverting vandalism. The vandals are fluffy and benign in comparison. Chapeau and a sky of barnstars to all editors who help keep this project as encyclopedic as possible. WP would be lost without them. Sometimes I seriously wonder why they stick around, they deserve nothing but respect and gratitude from everyone who loves this project. Amen. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
.....which rewards the POV pushers. So three cheers for Rockpocket, John, BHG, Alison, Tyrenius et al. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 Confirmed by checkuser that 78.19.xx.xx is the banned editor Gold heart (talk). I should have seen this and checked sooner - Alison ❤ 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And so does A.C. Doyle . . .

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, from Sherlock Holmes, The Blanched Soldier ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you got it. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Leadlerless resistance

Apologies, I thought it was ment to be the same as the List of animal rights groups's leadlerless resistance section, but obviously not. I thought vivisection made more sense, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untileveryoneisfree (talk • contribs) 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AR groups

Oh right, I thought that was what you meant. With regards to the leadlerless organisations; SPEAK, SHAC, SARC, WARN, although they are leaderless resistance, they are official organisations so are both. It is possible to have campaigns that are organised and leaderless, Climate Camp, Plane Stupid, and others follow this model.

I will delete the leadlerless groups which are not official organisations from the top though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untileveryoneisfree (talk • contribs) 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. BigDunc (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

But you're supposed to block after I report to AIV, not before. One Night In Hackney303 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My beady eyes (not to mention hammy fistsTM) were poised already. Rockpocket 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
lol - fists of ham!! :) - Alison ❤ 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Rock and ONiH that IP doesn't like me much :) BigDunc (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Serves you right for removing the "scrotum scraping"... One Night In Hackney303 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
True even brought a tear to my eye.BigDunc (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

Hi there, I've been wondering for a while if the Animal Testing article is good enough for nomination as a Good Article. Are there any major issues remaining that you think we would need to deal with before we could do this? Crum375 didn't have any specific comments, but for me the "Validity of results" section is still a bit ragged, but is there anything else you think we need to improve? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and cut most of that section, leaving a small piece to merge with the Applied Research section. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I've gone ahead and nominated it. Fingers crossed, although it's a bit backlogged at GAC reviews at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael L. Vincent

Hi and thank you for helping clean up this sock/meat puppet farm of an AfD. I saw you were doing some reverts, but there's still spam of a sort, unsigned and ISP. Does that need to be cleaned? I couldn't tell by what you reverted. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Granville Woods

Hi Rock any chance you could put Page Protection on this article very bad vandalism by IP's,needs a lot of work done to it started doing a bit yesterday. I tried requesting PP with Twinkle but dont think it worked, thanks. BigDunc (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected' for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -  déanta' - Alison ❤ 08:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Logos

Just checking we're thinking along the same lines here -- my view of logos is that they belong on the page of the organization whose logo it is, but not elsewhere. If we start including it on pages of people belonging to those groups, or in articles about ideas those groups have, then it starts to look like promotion, rather than reporting. So I'm inclined to remove all the AR logos, unless the page is about the specific group. I suppose an exception might be if there's a summary-style section about a group on another page; a logo might be okay in that section too, but even then with caution — for example, I found it pretty offensive that an ARM logo was placed next to the section about the removal of Gladys Hammond's remains, because it looked almost like a celebration of it.

Do you agree with that general position? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I'm not entirely sure there is any encyclopedic value of a logo is outside the article about what the logo represents. Used elsewhere, it becomes almost a badge of honour, ownership or as you suggest, even celebration. Our friend's categorization is getting a little out of hand too, it appears an image of a lamb should be in Categories: Animal rights | Vegetarianism | Veganism... Rockpocket 22:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the lamb and I've removed it. I've been tempted to block him too, actually, because it's bordering on vandalism given that he's ignoring requests that he stop. I hesitated only because I edit those articles a lot, but if you were to do it, I'd certainly support you, or we could ask someone completely uninvolved. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have some work to do so time is pressing. I don't really wish to block and not fully explain. I guess perhaps I'll leave it for now and then clean up his edits this evening, when he has gone to bed. I'll leave his a message explaining that I will block him tommorrow if this cycle continues and that we are well aware that in the past he simply creates a new account when one is blocked, and have been permitting him to do so. But that we will stop that too, unless he begins to slow down, ask for advice and work in a co-operative manner. Hopefully that might get the message through. Rockpocket 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Before I saw this post from you, I asked John to take a look here. I'll support whoever decides to step in, because it's definitely getting out of hand. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rockpocket/Archive_21&oldid=1190116875"