User talk:Rockpocket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
2006 1) 3 January 2006 – 17 March 2006 2) 18 March 2006 – 20 May 2006 3) 21 May 2006 – 8 June 2006 4) 10 June 2006 – 29 July 2006 5) 1 August 2006 – 31 October 2006 6) 1 November 2006 – 30 November 2006 7) 1 December 2006 – 31 December 2006 2007 8) 1 January 2007 – 28 January 2007 9) 29 January 2007 – 25 February 2007

Contents 1 Strange 2 Ejanniger 3 Survey Invitation 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Save_the_Newchurch_Guinea_Pigs 5 Lcnj 6 SmackDown vs Raw 2008 Reply 7 Thank you for your assistance 8 Reply 9 Trying to Understand 10 The Riches 11 RD:Color Collaboration transclusion 12 Edit count? 13 Question about licence tagging 14 Just wanted to say 15 Many, many thanks 16 Help Resolving a conflict 17 silly and possibly offensive montage 18 User:CreativeLogic 19 RfA 20 frustration 21 Image licence

[edit] Strange

I've never had issues with a userpage before - but this one may be questionable, I just thought you might want to take a look at it User_talk:Ejanniger (note:I know it's in a user talk page - but it's obviously meant to be the user page). He identifies him as an admin, has pretty much every barnstar in the book, and a few other things. I mean maybe that's fine, and feel free to call me a prick if I'm being one because frankly that's not my intention, but I'd appreciate it if you'd just check it out.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 00:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ejanniger

Thanks for letting me know! I deleted the user's talk page. Even though he is indefinitely blocked, he can still edit his usertalk page, since that would be their only form of communication if they wanted to say something or put up an unblock request. Thanks again, Nishkid64 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Save_the_Newchurch_Guinea_Pigs

I am one of probably thousands who have this dead link - www.liberation-now.org/ which was shut down by the authorities. I would be grateful if you can tell me the temporary proxy URL. It surely must be something like an online Newchurch forum group.

If you would be so kind, let me know at <email removed for anti-spam purposes> Cheers, John —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.154.115.73 (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi, I'm afraid I can't help you. I can't find any cache of the website and I am not familiar enough with the campaign to have any information on its workings. All I can suggest is to ask at some AR forums like Bite Back or PETA. Rockpocket 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lcnj

Hello. Isn't user:Lcnj blocked?Lcnj 19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. It clearly isn't, if you managed to recreate the account today. May I ask to whom I am speaking to? Rockpocket 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why was the account deleted? Was it because many Wikipedians had issues with the original Lncj that he decided to ask someone to delete the account and recreate a new one? Lcnj 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The original Lncj requested a username change to one that "reflects better my ability to contribute to articles all over the world." [1]. You can ask him what that actually means, if you wish. While you are free to use the Lncj username, I would personally recommend against it as it may lead to confusion in the future. Its your choice, though. Rockpocket 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SmackDown vs Raw 2008 Reply

Here you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008 -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your assistance

Two things:

1) I have deleted the inappropriate warning left on my page, per your advice as to my right to do so.
2) Thanks for your assistance on the Scott O'Dell Award for Historical Fiction page. The only questions I had were with regards to the shift of the table from the end to the middle of the very short article. The shift seemed to break up the article in such a way as to unimprove it a bit, creating the feel of a stub instead of an article. And I was also wondering about the removal of the adjective "harrowing" in the phrase "harrowing tale of wilderness survival." Did you feel that inclusion of that adjective violated WP:NPOV in some way? If so, how can we include adjectives without violating that guideline?

Lastly, if you think we should transfer #2 to the discussion page of the Scott O'Dell Award page, I will do so. Thanks again for all your help!K. Scott Bailey 08:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the table, I moved it there simply because I saw it as a subsection of the history section. I take your point about article flow, though, feel free to move it back of you wish. Regarding "harrowing", I removed it as a WP:PEACOCK term. To be honest, its quite a pedantic example of that, but its just second nature to me now to remove such adjectives (which are all pretty much frowned upon unless attributed). Again, I will not protest if you choose to replace it as, contrary to many admins here, I generally don't really mind if my contributions to article-space get reverted. Its just my opinion, who is to say whether it is better or not? Feel free to copy this to the talk-page if you wish. Rockpocket 08:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon review, I realize that I had read "harrowing" in several other authors' descriptions of the book. It must have just been a word that stuck in my head for description of the book. As for the other edit, I may move that table back to the bottom, as I consider it simply informational, and more of a source than anything else. As mentioned, I also think it helps with article flow.K. Scott Bailey 08:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Thanks for notifying me and I apologize for my overreaction. I was insulted by his response, and hence was not thinking straight when responding. I have removed the analogy, but kept the other content intact. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are all vulnerable to "foot-in-mouth" disease. :)—²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to Understand

I'm trying to understand your position on this. I realize it's politically expedient for everyone to pile on me a bit in the and to support the inappropriate deletion, but I'm disappointed that you did so as well. I'm trying to figure out what part of the thread I created made it worthy of deletion. I would honestly appreciate your opinion as to what portion of the thread I posted made it worthy of deletion. I appreciate your calling the other admin on his over-the-top rhetoric, though. I also look forward to hearing just what part of my thread you felt made it worthy of deletion. I'm always open to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Unfortunately, the gist of the advice I've gotten on the BN is "don't be a dick" from the famed SlimVirgin. Others have simply said I shouldn't have posted it, and accused me of "piling on", "soapboxing", and other things. Mind you, they haven't pointed to even a single portion of my thread that could be classified as such, which is why I say that I haven't been offered any CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. This is why I look forward to hearing you explain what parts of my ACTUAL THREAD you felt were out-of-line, inappropriate, or whatever. I feel you'll do your best to be open and honest with me.K. Scott Bailey 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think anything you wrote is particularly "worthy of deletion", but neither would I consider it particularly constructive considering the timing in relation to the AfD. What I wrote was that it is "probably best removed", because Chacor found it offensive (I imagine he is probably feeling a bit bruised at the moment. I found my AfD traumatic enough and mine passed pretty easily). I can't really see anything that is gained by keeping it, since the AfD is closed and there is no indication of there being another one, and if there is you can repeat it with impunity there. The only thing lost in its removal is your "right to expression" (a right which doesn't actually exist here on WP).

So in purely utilitarian analysis, I conclude that the "best" outcome (for the project) was removal and thus not reinstatment. That doesn't make anything you said out-of-line or inappropriate, in my opinion, and I strongly disgree with the accusations of "trolling" aimed at you consequently. It could and should have been handled much differently and I have expressed that opinion to the other admin's involved, but at the same time I really think you should let this slide, as its not worth the time you and others are investing on debating it.

I don't know what else to tell you except that sometimes on Wikipedia there is no right and wrong, simply different opinions. If someone finds my comments offensive, I will remove them myself. Why? Well, its impolite to make others feel bad, when that wasn't my intention, and if its in my power to make them feel better with quick retraction then I'll do it. And sometimes - in the interests of the project - even if you feel wronged its worth being the bigger man and saying "I strongly disagree with your opinion and feel the process used here was unfair. I wish to register my protest, and hope you will give it due consideration." Then walk away. Rockpocket 03:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone had so eloquently expressed the need to remove my comments (not with "Dude, let it go"), I would have removed them myself, with apologies. However, the thread was continually blanked, by four different editors, leading me to believe and justifiably so, I think--that I was being tag-teamed, so the other users wouldn't be in danger of a 3RR violation. No one other than Kafziel ever attempted to discuss the content, or why it might need to be removed, instead simply blanking the thread. You can understand why--after I discovered the BN thread where one of the editors doing the blanking requested a protect on the page--that I felt even more attacked. In my opinion, if the editors/admin/whoever that kept blanking the thread would have simply approached the situation with the diplomacy that you have above, the situation would not have escalated in the least. I appreciate your analysis, and will respect your advice on how to move forward. With that said, I will definitely keep a close eye out for a potential "Chacor3" RfA. I have nothing personal against the guy/girl, I just don't think that someone who has demonstrated capacity for such duplicity ever need be trusted with the tools again. And that was my only point on the discussion page as well. Thanks again for taking a look, and for offering advice.K. Scott Bailey 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that a slightly more collegial approach from those keen to protect Chacor may have avoided this whole kerfuffle. Its one of my concerns with WP at how often quick and abrupt actions from admins ends up causing a time-sink much greater when simply taking the time to explain their concerns in a more empathetic manner in the first place. I don't believe you had any malice in your original comments and I don't blame you for being irked at the OTT responses it drew. However, I would ask you to simply consider - if a similar thing happens in future - what actions you could take to help defuse the situation also. I happen to largely agree with you about Chacor's appropriateness from adminship, though, and made my opinion known at the last RfA. I will also be keeping an eye open for RfA#3 and, if you like, I'd be happy to drop you a note on your talkpage if it comes up. Rockpocket 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. It's my view that being entrusted with the tools of adminship should be a priviledge reserved for those who have demonstrated both a calm demeanor and the utmost integrity. As such, I'd really appreciate a note when Chacor comes up again (as his supporters have made clear he will), as I feel that based upon the review I did of his record, he's demonstrated neither of these necessary qualities.K. Scott Bailey 18:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Riches

No problem. I was just sitting there, trying to parse what that could mean. It's an awkward sentence, though, and I think that synop section needs some work. Bah. :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RD:Color Collaboration transclusion

I've replaced it with this small, unintrusive, template {{Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/color}}--VectorPotential^Talk 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats great, thanks. I'll offer my opinion on the colour presently. Rockpocket 01:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit count?

Hi Rockpocket, I’m back in the realm of Wikipedia, and it is so good to be back! Anyway, I’ve got a quick question: how does one keep an edit count? Thanks! S.dedalus 06:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about licence tagging

You contacted me about the photo I uploaded of the caterpillar, and said I should licence it for use. I'm happy to do this, in fact, I thought I already had! How do I go about it, please?Snorgle 12:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just wanted to say

That I appreciated your very cogent, get to the heart of the matter and yet emphathetic style in dealing with User:MiddleEastern. I think it's a challenge for many editors from places and backgrounds underrepresented here at Wikipedia - and stemming from certain realities characterizing our current global apartheid system - to deal with the domination of a host of "first world" or "Western" or however-you-wish-to-name-them-like narratives that editors from those worlds often take for granted as unchallenged truth (from their lack of experience in interaction with others as well). Everyone becomes a victim and it's a vicious cycle, unless there's a vigilant awareness surrounding issues of systematic bias and a constant bringing back discussions to issues and implications in terms of how it affects policy and the community. (I'm not trying to excuse any of MiddleEastern's inappropriate comments or behvaiour, jsut providing context.) In any case, I've pontificated quite enough (at this moment seeming to lack the same cogency and consistency of thought I came to praise you for. I just wanted to say express my admiration/appreciation. :) Tiamut 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rockpocket. Once again, you have shown yourself to be empathethic and reasonable. It's a very difficult balance and yet you seem to have it mastered. Kudos.

About the gap in understanding between editors of different backgrounds, you comments were spot on. I would add that on a personal note, I find that what is considered amongst Arabs to be just a lively discussion, is often viewed as overly aggressive or pushy in other cultural contexts. When I was younger I was often told "there's no need to get angry" by non-Arab friends, and the funny thing is that I usually wasn't - I was usually just excited. Generally-speaking, I've noticed that we have a tendency to raise our voices and speak over one another, probably a function of having large families as well where people have to generally vie for atention or shout over one another to be heard. I don't know. In any case, though it's a massive generalization, it's just one example of the different thresholds governing debate and discussion in various cultural contexts. Thanks again fo your comments and please excuse anything politically incorrect in my own (it's just an informal personal observation). I also wanted to grant you this:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for balancing empathy and reason and contributing to the generation of a climate where controversial issues and behaviours can be openly discussed with respect while gently and yet firmly pointing out where lines have been crossedTiamut 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is one more thing. I wanted to ask your opinion on this discussion : [2]. User:Quadell bascially told all those who felt offended by User:Jayjg's remarks to get a thicker skin and deal with it (which seemed to be reasonable enough advice after his explanation). Do you think this has any relation to this discussion above, or am I mixing apples and oranges? (And I ask this with the ready acknowledgement that some of User:MiddleEastern comments were clearly unacceptable and that she has not yet proven (at least on this English Wiki) to be a serious editor when judged by the content of her edits to articles to date.) I just wondered if you think this has any bearing on the discussion above. With respect. Tiamut 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many, many thanks

Thank you, thank you, thank you for your sanity and wisdom on Talk:Celtic F.C.. --Guinnog 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] silly and possibly offensive montage

Hello, Rockpocket. I'm sorry if my infantile pis-photo-montage offended you. (shouldn't have edited while intoxicated). I liked your answer to the hair questions a lot. I think it's obvious which statements were presented in a referenced and educated fashion, and which ones weren't. As you pointed out with much fatigue, we've been here many times before. My suggestion is to present the factual and referenced information, possibly point out the dubiosity of any misplaced information, and then leave it at that, i.e., up to the readers to read and judge for themselves. I wouldn't name names, and I wouldn't take the bait, especially not when there seems to be a need to have the last word. Please reconsider your decision, the rd has improved, though in cycles and retro-cycles, and needs to continue to improve. (And as a cephalopod-lover, I like the article on chromatophores, btw). ---Sluzzelin talk 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well argued. The only trump card left in my hand, shows the poor posters who ask questions (unless of course, it's all one big phantom, how the helI would I know). Who's going to give them the answers they seek and deserve? Given the desks' scope of time and attention, I doubt that enforcement of policy would really work. It would always lag way behind. I have no idea what exactly was going on a couple of months ago, when the RD suddenly saw a new bunch of no-nonsense editors taking a keen interest in its quality, but I'm glad some of this Cabal (teehee) decided to stay. Not everyone stayed, however, and it was sad seeing a helpful editor go, taking his enlightening answers to philosophical questions with him. What a pity if you and others abandoned the desks too! I'd much rather experience another aggressive wave of educated and resourceful editors flooding the desks and rendering the inanities (to which, with my head hanging in shame, I contribute too) irrelevant and harmless. So, bring on the next Cabal, dammit! Take care ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep to your comments on "online debating", couldn't agree more, possible exceptions being groups with restricted access or private e-mail, of course. I'm honestly flattered by your kind remarks regarding sysopship, but I don't want to be an administrator. In the extremely unlikely case that I change my mind, I'll be certain to ask you; the honor of being nominated by Rockpocket would be mine entirely. Thank you, and have a happy (& short) break! ---Sluzzelin talk 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:CreativeLogic

User:CreativeLogic has shown far too much know-how about wiki for a new user, and I am pretty sure he has been created as an abusive sock, who should be indef blocked. Just his edit summaries alone are appalling. Tyrenius 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Hi; thank you, your comment in response to that oppose vote is correct. Furthermore, as User:Gwernol had offered to nominate me on my return to this Country from a far east trip, but had not done so, and as his userpage indicated that he was largely unavailable, it was my intention, while doing it secondhand to avoid canvassing, as you say, to indicate to him that he did not need to do anything because someone else had done so. It was meant to give him one less thing to do, although I am aware that he has entered a support vote. I am grateful for it, but at no time asked for it.--Anthony.bradbury 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. You are very welcome, as the oppose is logically weak and poorly thought out (not to mention suicidal, since there is nothing like a spectacular display of poor judgment on another ongoing RfA to scupper your own). Moreover, I know how frustrating it is to have something misinterpreted during your RfA, so i'm always happy to counterbalance opposes that I feel are unfair. It looks very much like this one is going to be successful, and I sincerely hope it is, as you'll make a great admin. Good luck! Rockpocket 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you once again. Fortuitously, while I comment quite often at RfA, I had not done so in the case of this editor. I feel that it would be sensible not to comment on his RfA, although the temptation to put the boot in is almost overwhelming. I shall resist it.--Anthony.bradbury 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Actually i'm just investigating his contributions myself and am going to !vote oppose, out of mercy more than anything else. The guy is way too sensitive for adminship. The best you can do is sit tight and resist the urge to do anything other than the most uncontroversial of edits. There are plenty of people who go around looking for any reason to oppose, so there is no point in making it easy for them. Rockpocket 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] frustration

Hey Rockectpocket, I was following your debate with StuRat with interest. It was quite similar too my own frustrations with his speculative ideas about telomerase. I'm not re-entering that debate but you might want to consider moving over to citizendium. It is clearly embryonic and has a long way to go but from what I have seen it has a much better chance of harboring stable and reliable articles. David D. (Talk) 20:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image licence

Sorry for being a pain, but I can't work out how to put the licence on! I'd be happy to have the first licence (GNU) put on it, thanks.