User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Username: LiamSAFC

Just for fun, this username (which you previously warned for recreating The Uriah Rennie Show after it had been deleted, has now created another page, cleverly called TURS ... yeah, it's an acronym. That page is tagged for delete as well, but it appears this boy is persistant. Philippe Beaudette 01:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As far as I'm concerned, this editor has added nothing to the project and simply ties up the time of other editors. I have blocked him for 48hrs for persistent recreation of inappropriate material after a final warning. Do let me know if you spot him continuing down this track on the expiry of his block, next time it will be much longer. Rockpocket 03:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I responded to your comments about my question. I also did so using my username. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I consider it a kind gesture and hope that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia and that other editors and admin can be as understanding as you.

Regards,

Teh Janitor 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

Unfortunately this happens too often on the ref desk. Here is another example. I know this is opening another can of worms but it does not help the ref desk. David D. (Talk) 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes educated speculation is unavoidable, based on the paucity of information available or the nature of the question. However, when the relevent information has already been provided, with sources, speculating is of no use whatsoever. Rockpocket 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Thanks for reverting some user page vandalism on December 31. I've been negligent in not showing my appreciation sooner. All the best. --Scimitar 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello From LiamSAFC!

Hello Rockpocket!

As I can see, you look like a very highly respectable administator of wikipedia, and most valued to say the least, but it has crossed my mind due to recent circumstances that you seemed to have blocked my pages that I have made which is linked with the English Premeirleague Referee 'Uriah Rennie'. The article was created via my personal time, i hope you value that, but I think Wikipedia were wrong to block the article, and then I was further implimentented as 'total nonense' and videos to google video. I have taken this to heart because the show has actually progressed onto Television, onto shows such as 'Tarrant on TV' and 'Outrageous Show 2006' broadcasted by BSkyB and ITV respectively. I hope you may let me recreate the article, and furthermore I hope we can become great friends via he use of Wikipedia,

Yours Truely Liam Blyth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LiamSAFC (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Back home

Hi Rockpocket, and a happy New Year to you to! As you can see I’m now home and back on the beat. Despite searching, I haven’t been able to find any sources for a section in my (soon to be) Samuel Jones article about his music style. How well sourced should this be? Any ideas where I could look for information about this? Also, is there a way to make my user boxes look tidy? :-) Thanks! S.dedalus 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

I didn't know if you had a chance to respond to my question (statement moreso) that I linked to in an above message. If you get the time, I'd appreciate any guidance you could offer.

Thanks in advance,

Teh Janitor 07:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about the delay, I have responded on your talk page. Rockpocket 08:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing Animal Rights question

Hello, one of the other editors, suggested I contact you for advice. They suggested I ask you to review my questions to them under the Animal rights heading of User talk:C.lettinga and the discussion under the subheading History of the concept on the Talk:Animal rights page. It is probably premature for a newby such as myself to attempt to edit such a contested article. Advice would be helpful. Thanks. Trilobitealive 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.I will not do anything except look at sources for a short while so as to not stir the pot further. Considering your points:

• Use of EB: I can best explain my contention by the use of this quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sourcesTertiary—Summarized material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations.
• Reliable sources for the use of the concept prior to late 19th century: So far I haven't found any primary sources at all. Animal rightism is much like a religious schism from animal welfarism, which in turn split from aspects of humanism and conservationism. One can look to the founders themselves for their inspiration, but prior to their individual religious conversions there no sources. Secondary and tertiary commentary is either by believers or non believers, just as is commentary on Calvinism or Mormonism.

Hello again. FYI I've made a couple of edits on the Animal rights article which will probably precipitate another biting incident but which needed to be made. However, until the tooth marks heal I'll try to refrain from bring up the concept of Hohfeldian incidents.Trilobitealive 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement, but I'm pulling out of trying to do anything with Animal rights. I started out pretty much agnostic about the whole thing, merely seeing some needs to improve, the more I learn about it the more I realize it isn't fixable. You can refer to the article and its talk page if you wish, but I'm out of it. Regards.Trilobitealive 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Quackpot

Subsequent to Cesar's comment, I'd like to remind you about the terms of your probation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cesar_Tort_and_Ombudsman_vs_others#Enforcement. I consider repeatedly reverting sourced content without talk page justification - especially when there is extensive ongoing collaboration on the talk page - as "disruption by tendentious editing". What is more, considering the situation regarding the addtion of POV templates without talk page justification in the aforementioned case, tag-teaming with Cesar again does not seem wise. For the record, Bartlett is being used as an attributed source of criticism - not a reliable source of fact. He seems perfectly notable and thus I can see no problem with his inclusion, especially as Breggin himself is sourced as a critic in a number of psychiatry related articles. Scuro is a reasonable editor and appears perfectly willing and able to collaborate, I suggest you work with him on the talkpage instead of reverting his work, or else you risk being blocked. Thank you. Rockpocket 09:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please adopt a more congenial attitude if you truly have a desire to discuss content. Stephen Barrett seems to have made a career out of attacking anything that might shine light on the profiteering rampant in the medical field, particularly that of pharmaceuticals. As you might note on the Peter Breggin article's talk page, there was little or nothing in the way of explaining why a character like Barrett should be given much, if any, credence. Please, try focusing on content, rather than further muddying the waters with tangential issues. Ombudsman 09:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope you would recognise the irony in criticising Barrett making "a career out of attacking anything", in the context of discussing Breggin. Barrett has much more credence among the scientific community than Breggin (who is little more than a anti-psychiatry attack-dog) yet you appear to have no problem with using him, and other equally dubious critical sources when its suits your POV (per ArbCom "Ombudsman has a long standing history of tendentious editing of medical articles, often citing sources of doubtful reliability; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman.").

However, I'm not interested in discussing the specifics of the subject with you. I've seen where that leads. My involvement here was in attempting to find consensus between two interpretations of Breggin from obviously different point of views, not to add content myself. Scuro has been very open to collaboration, while you have failed to justify your blanket reversions. Its very difficult to adopt a "congenial attitude" - or any attitude for that matter - with someone who refuses to engage. As I was involved (albeit only in a minor fashion) in your ArbCom case, I'm not going to block you myself, but if you continue tendentious editing from an anti-psychiatry POV I will report you at the Admin Noticeboard with a recommendation to block. Please take this opportunity to engage with Scuro to reach a consensus on an acceptable criticism section. Also, please do not delete administrator communications from your talk page, if you would like to remove this I would suggest you archive it. Thank you. Rockpocket 10:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be mindful of the fact that restoring the npov tag on the Biological psychiatry article was entirely valid, and that there are limits on what types of discussion merit 'engagement'. Sadly, User:Joema was duped into believing that the npov tag on the Anti-vaccinationist character assassination article was not justified, even though it likewise was entirely valid. Breggin has been correct about many of the transgressions of pharmaceutical companies and the consequences of unfettered drug marketing, which is why many psychotropic drugs are getting black box warnings, and why medical journal editors are describing their publications as little more than marketing propaganda sheets. And please, be aware that your comments above should have been presented in a manner that would elicit goodwill. Ombudsman 11:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. However, ArbCom clearly disagreed and it is their opinion that counts around here. I'm sorry if my contributions appeared confrontational, I do apologise, that was not my intention. After you deleted my second message, I was busy drafting a report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. However, on reflection that my tone may have been less than friendly and because you reproduced the dialogue here, I'll hold back.

Look, lets be frank, Ombudsman. You are not stupid - you know that there are two sides to every story and that people like Breggin and Barrett are going to polarise opinion based on your POV. Both articles are going to have criticism from individuals from the other POV. Scuro clearly has no love for Breggin, I'm sure he will admit that, and that is why he is not the best person to be editing the criticism section. I personally couldn't care less about either of them and their POVs and have no agenda here other than to write a balanced article. I hope my communications with Scuro demonstrate that. So how about you let me work with Scuro on the section and, when I'm happy are happy with it, I'll let you know so we can discuss the concerns you have and see if we can solve them. Then hopefully we can reach a point where you are both happy(ish)? Rockpocket 11:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights no longer a fringe view

The idea of animal rights has moved into the mainstream. The 2007 Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Animal rights is written by a pro-animal rights legal scholar, Steven M. Wise. Here's a link, though you may need a subscription to see it all. [1] If you can't see it, try clicking on "Share full article with your Readers." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it may be a sub-article that's written by him on the modern movement. Anyway, it's a sign of things to come. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmmm. It would appear EB's editors do not adhere to the same principles of NPOV that we do:

"the increasingly systemic and brutal abuses of animals in modern society—by the billions on factory farms and by the tens of millions in biomedical-research laboratories—spawned thousands of animal rights groups."

"Brutal abuses" ≈ perfectly legal procedures? Wise is a poweful advocate, though.Rockpocket 23:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for adoption

I'm a new user to Wikipedia and I would like to be adopted. Thank you. --Freiddy 11:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. Thanks for replying me anyway. I'm sure you can help me in the future. --Freiddy 12:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Uriah Rennie Show

Evidently the block you put on User:LiamSAFC has expired, and he has (AGAIN) recreated The Uriah Rennie Show. <sigh> Philippe Beaudette 04:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Frank McGarvey

Well done! --Guinnog 07:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ta! Rockpocket 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For that, sourcing the PvH stuff and for your many fine contributions to the discussion on Talk:Celtic, I've given you an award. --Guinnog 07:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I think you have earned it! --Guinnog 07:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your help

thank you for your help, ou answered my question of- Ca i talk to people and emet new people over wikipedia not just people i know already... it was really helpfull. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12bogdanicha (talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

You are very welcome! Rockpocket 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dopamine

• Hello, I appreciate your response to my question regarding Huntington's Disease on the Reference Desk.

• If I make you unhappy with this sentence, I am truly sorry. I am the Sock Puppet of User:Jones2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Endgame1

• I had created the account because I had an indefinite block on original account: User:Endgame1.

• I believed that the block duration on my original account was unsjustified.

• I conclude my message with thanking you for answering my question. Thank You. --EdwardN 14:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• It was done by Cabal Admins.
• Their Reason = [2]
• Why I put: I though to save space, and since it was no longer required I put it up for deletion, I did not delete it per se, it has to be reviewed by an admin before being deleted.
• 01:03, 22 October 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs) blocked "Endgame1 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalsim)
• 04:46, 22 October 2006 Tawker (Talk | contribs) unblocked Endgame1 (contribs) (umm, I'll msg pschemp re this, I think it's a mistake block)
• 04:51, 22 October 2006 Tawker (Talk | contribs) blocked "Endgame1 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (actually, vandalblock)
• My Talk page is also protected & I don't want to email Tawker or Pschemp because they are very mean.

--EdwardN 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome for the reply. Unfortunately admitting to being a sock puppet of an indef banned user is likely to lead to a block of this account too. It appears your appeals have been refused a number of times by other administrators who are more familiar with your editing history. I am sorry, but I don't believe I would come to a different conclusion. Rockpocket 05:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT

Hi there,

As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.

A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.

Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.

Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Thanks for your kind comment at the reference desk. People like you truly uphold the spirit of Wikipedia. BeefJeaunt 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Adopt

Hi, I just found the adopt program, and I decided to check outa few of the people who are adopting. I'm not exactly NEW to Wikipedia, I've had an account for a while (at least 6 months) but I've only begun taking it seriously recently. I looked at a few artices that you've done (such as Muslims for America and The Scripps Research Institute) and I really like what you've done on a lot of them, so I was wondering if you would be interested in adopting me. Feel free to see what I've done (although you'll find the vast majority of what I've done is add some kind of templates, either Citation or deletion) or ask me any questions - and I really appreciate you taking the time to be a part of the adoption program itself -it's really a great idea.
Thanks for considering me!
--Danielfosom^T|_C|^U 04:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the agreement, although I feel somewhat bad making you do all the paperwork - is there anything I can do to help? --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 07:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh well that's good, thanks for the comment on the mistakes section - after i made that first big mistake I decided that I'm no where near as good an editor as a lot of these people, so I should always think twice about editing - edit only on things that I don't think will raise any objections. Sadly though I have yet to start thinking twice, and hopefully if I add more to that section I'll remember to. However I could use some help with this article, Powerslam magazine. I've put the deletion tag on two times now, the author deleted it and made the text somewhat better, but I still think it's an ad so I put another one on. Can I get your opinon? Thanks either way, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 08:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way it was deleted the first time.--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jade

Yes. You have to have a laugh some times. And Jade is one big laugh. Wallie 09:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

O well. Someone reverted me. Guess they didn't have our sense of humour... :) Wallie 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you Check this out?

Could you have a look at this page, it's what I did to a NBA Finals page that was in a "Articles with Unsourced Statements" backlog. I know it's not done, I just want to be sure I'm pushing it in the right direction, thanks either way, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, I'll go back and fix all the references without whitespace (sorry about that), and I think there still need to be some more citations, so off to work for now, but tell me if you want me to do anything/know of anything I should do. Thanks for all your help --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Does Wikipedia have a policy on blanking? Because I think I have that as one of my mistakes (I told the guy he shouldn't blank the article when putting a speedy delete tag in - no matter how crazy it is), but I want to make sure they actually do before I keep it there, just in case, thanks!

OK I finished what I wanted to do with the article, I hope that the refernces next to headings is well liked -because it's now done three times :-/ (I didn't know where else to put the citations for the rosters - all the rosters are are a heading and then the team, so I put it on the heading). Haha, again I'll be on Wikipedia for awihle if you have anything you'd like me to do, but for now to the recent changes section. --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 21:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Need an Admin

I know I've been overloading you with request (sorry!), but this seems pretty important. This IP address has been vandalizing articles a lot, and there are multiple warning on his page. However, I just looked at his contributions, and there are still a few more vandalisms he has made. Could you check him out?

• Him
• One of is reverted edits
• An Edit I will revert as soon as I get word from you
• another Reverted edit

Thanks, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Yeah, this is you garden variety IP vandal and spammer. All those edits should be reverted and warnings placed on his talk page. If he continues you can always report him at WP:AIV, but it should only be after a level 4 warning (see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace) and the vandalising should be current. In that case he may be blocked for a short period, however we don't block IPs for a long time because it might be a dynamic IP and some this would interfere with other editors. Rockpocket 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Woops

Oh sorry, that's what I got from the text, I guess I just read it wrong. However, this (something else) is starting to get annoying, because I don't really know, but I'm having to give answers to this person whose yelling at me. Her page was delted, and because I nominated it she thinks I was the one who delted it and shes freaking out and I have no idea what to do (see my and her talk pages) - I'm not exactly being civil in my last comment, but that's only because she's asking the same question ...well you'll see. thanks (it's the one who has like the last three comments BHAppy or something like that) --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately new editors who don't understand how Wikipedia works will often get frustrated and lose their temper with you. You have done the right thing, though its best to try and not shout back at them. Hopefully they will get the message soon. Otherwise, you can refer them to Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? or to the administrator that deleted the article. Rockpocket 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think i've made some progress, she/he asked me what their next step was(they contested the deletion) and I pointed her to WP:Undeletion_policy - they're going through that now. Hey did you find out anything about that blanking policy i mentioned above?--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 00:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow managed to miss your question about blanking. Articles should only be blanked - and the appropriate template added in its place - if they are copyright violations and there isn't a safe version to which it can be reverted (see WP:CP). Other than that, articles should not generally be blanked, no matter how obviously useless they are. On some rare occasions, when for example an article only exists as a death threat or a someone's personal information has been posted, there could be an argument for blanking. In these cases its a good idea to blank and contact an admin immediately. They will usually delete the article and the page history so the information cannot be accessed, then deal with the person who posted the information. Rockpocket 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Darnit, I let the guy convince me he was right - it's still on my biggest mistakes section ... uhh well hey. I do have another question though (as always - hehe, yahh, I'm not a very good adoptee I guess...), on second thought it's more of a statement. The problem is I have no idea what to do. Period. I mean, pretty much what I do now is go through backlogs that interest me, go through my watchlist, and stay on recent changes section 90% of the time - and it feels like I could be doing more. Like I don't know, I've never been involved in a dispute/edit war, and frankly I don't think I've ever come close to one - I'd like to like, I don't know mediate in some way, or ... just do something, but I can't find anything. I guess I just feel like water outside a pipe - if you know what I mean (do I know what I mean?). Idk, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

New Suggstion

I just suggested a new section in the Nigga page, and I know your interested in that article so i'd appreciate if you could give some feedback, thanks!--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 16:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Links

Sweet, I did a extremely short stub on an article that needed to be created, and left some pretty good links someone interested in expanding it could go do, although as far as the mediation thing goes, it seems like i'm always a step behind. Everytime I see something, someone already has it. hm well hey, thanks again! --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OMG I can't believe I left that out! I am an idiot ... some good news though, I'm working on an AMA case, I just took it and I'm waiting for the author to start it off. Hopefully me being an idiot won't affect the case too badly. --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 07:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rockpocket ...

... for leaving a message and explanation on my talk page regarding why you deleted my article, Belinda Webster. My other article (Tony Le Rhodes) was also deleted, but the user did not even bother to msg me.

Can you tell me, how exactly do people decide what subject matter is "notable" and "significant"? For example, must an actor have starred in an A-grade film before the actor is deemed worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? In any case, I understand fully why you deleted my article, but I thought I modified the Tony Le Rhodes article sufficiently to satisfy the guidelines ... Drbw 14:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ritalin class action

Thanks also for your advice previously. I was wondering if you could look at an article that I created. (ritalin class action lawsuits) and just give it an edit. Once an article is created should anything else be done?

--Scuro 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there Rockpocket!

Hey, I was wondering how I could become a part of the admin at your place! It would be great, it means i could make better use of my articles on companies from Buisness, such as McDonalds and other leading high street brands. I'm in first year at College in U.K,and i got 3 A*'s, 4 A's and 4 B's. I hope I can join your team one day and become as experienced as yourself. Also, ive also heard about 'adopt a user' and i'd love it if you could adopt me and help me! Thanks!

FatManScoop (Rory McCallister) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FatManScoop (talk • contribs)

THB

Oops. Sorry for blocking across the top of your "final warning." If you want to unblock, fine by me. - brenneman 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Legs on Earth

You deleted my topic I made for Legs on Earth for "assert the notability of the subject" I am not exactly sure what it means but my article was totally factual and also talked about a band alot of people are qurious about and dont know anything about. If you could give me some tips on how to make this article stay up I would apriciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Issachk (talk • contribs)

---

Barnstar

Thanks very much, hugely appreciated.Archibald99 16:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

Hi again. I mentioned you and quoted your work as an example of excellence here and I thought I would let you know. --Guinnog 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I guess it would be nice if there was a level of consistency among all football articles. I'm not sure if my suggestions are even close to being definitive guidelines, but I think they are certainly a step in the right direction. Rockpocket 08:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuke

K sorry it took me so long to respond - wasn't here for 3 days - but I'll take it off, I must say though if Wikipedia editors really trust a nuclear attack sign that is A) on Wikipedia and B) says to "DUCK AND COVER" then maybe there needs to be a standard (how bout a question on the sign up page - do you believe that the Duck and Cover method works?) for wikipedia editors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

Oh ya I agree with you in that I should've taken it off - but I got some pretty strange emails about it where it sounded like the people believed me (maybe I shouldn't put my email address on wikipedia). And sorry about this unsigned thing- my keyboard doesn't have tilde's on it and the computer I'm using won't allow me to click the John Hancock thing (it just drags the image) - is there any alternative to signing? for now I'll just put the unsigned template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

Ahh thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

re. Henry Ian Cusick page...

Thank you! You're absolutely right, and I'm glad you removed my edit, which was itself just a response to jb dean's earlier one. It really is neither here nor there as far as his actor bio goes, and stating the facts simply (they're legally wed now; they used to live together without marriage) is much more apt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.53.58.159 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal

Hey, so before I get yelled at (which will prob. happen anyay :-D) could you make sure what i did on my userpage is legal? *Don't worry, it's kinda hard to miss...--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the background to the WP logo? I don't know if it is legal or not, to be honest, but I don't see how it does any harm and it certainly doesn't bother me. That said, it would probably be frowned upon by some one, so I wouldn't be surprised if you get asked about it before long! Rockpocket 06:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied

Hi Rockpocket. Can you check out mytalk page please. I replied to your comment. Thanks.

My blooper

Hi Rockpocket! I haven’t had much to ask you lately as I’ve had little time in real life to edit . Anyway, I finely got around to moving and creating that Samuel Jones (composer) page as you directed me here[3]. (I did it under the name of my per policy sock puppet accounts because I want to make sure I’m not seen as seeking favor with him in real life by creating his page :-#) I think I messed it up though. For some reason the pages seem to now share a single talk page. Aak! What did I do? Also one other question. . . is there a way to link to a subsection of a page? Thanks your help! S.dedalus 08:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Light current blocked

Hey; I blocked Light current for 24 hours because he was stirring the pot on User talk:THB, was warned by you and by me and then played dumb about it, following the usual pattern.

I wanted a third opinion about whether or not I'm overreacting. I keep hoping that Light current will get it through his head that deliberately trying to stir up animosity between editors – even when some of those editors are big bad admins – just isn't helpful or acceptable. Polite advice and stern warnings don't seem to work, so it looks like we're back to blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Divisive language

Hello, Rockpocket I was a bit irritated by the "ever feel you are being used".bit here. I'm not sure there's any need for these tactics. I don't wish to get involved in the discussion, and find your arguments sensible otherwise - it's only the divisiveness, often based on irrelevant history, I 'm concerned about. Forgive me if I'm taking it out on you. ---Sluzzelin 01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is fair enough, Sluzzelin, and thanks for letting me know of your concerns. On reflection, I agree that was not among my best moments. Perhaps I should explain, though, that I wrote that not as a tactic to divide and conquer, but because its genuinely what I think happens (though perhaps not consciously). Its my feeling that, unless LC manages to extract himself from his current alliance with StuRat and THB, he is on a course to be blocked indefinately.

Here is what has happened the last two times LC has been blocked. StuRat's content gets removed from RD. He protests and a conflict arises. But he appears to know when to stop, just as LC and THB get involved. The do not appear to know when to stop and step over the line into incivility and namecalling. Now, these events have been key in perpetuating the feeling of an us-and-them situation, which StuRat appears set on establishing (see his RfC for more on that). I therefore firmly believe its in LC's interests to resist getting involved in the conflicts resulting from someone removing StuRat's content from the RD. It may not be intentional, but he is taking the fall everytime StuRat makes an inclusionist stand (and in this case, the stand was entirely without merit. Laughably so). To get to the point, the aim of that comment was to try and draw LC's attention to this for his own benefit. It was not meant as an attack on StuRat

That said, I have lectured enough on understanding the impact of one's statements on others. And I accept that that comment is unfair on StuRat, as clearly LC can make his own choices and its not StuRat's fault if he choses to get involved. I'm happy to withdraw it and do apologise. Best. Rockpocket 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your straightforward explanation. You understood my concern exactly the way I felt it. I wish I had a suggestion for proceding successfully. Like you, I've been following this evolvement for the past few months (well, some of it anyway), and have seen several people, admins and not, "delists" and "inclists" addressing the conflict. It seems as though every well-meant "didactic" approach is doomed to fail, resulting in more WP:SPIDER actions. I note and respect that you wont accept any more disruption, but this isn't going to go away and every administrative action will further stiffen the rigid us-vs-them perspective. I wish I had something else to suggest, I don't. Good luck. ---Sluzzelin 10:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting into the conversation, but there's a point when bending over backward to avoid an "us-vs-them" perspective is no longer possible without compromising on policy. THB and Light current respond to their feelings of being wronged by behaving grossly inappropriately; they should air their complaints through appropriate channels instead. I understand that there is now a cycle of blocking leading to worse behavior leading to more blocking, but I do not think there is a better alternative—the community cannot accept frankly immature behavior simply because some users respond to consequences for that behavior with even more immaturity. Being a Wikipedian sometimes means swallowing your pride and listening to the community, because sometimes it's the best way forward even if you think that the others are wrong. I've had to do that once or twice, and now THB and Light current will have to as well; if they choose not to, or can't, then they will end up being indefinitely blocked. That is very sad, because they both make good contributions, but the alternative is worse. -- SCZenz 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)