User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Anti Psychiatry

Very nice work so far on this page. There may be hope for it yet. Just fyi, in poking about the internet I found the following [1], which is a book review that just happens to be a fairly temperate, apparently well-rounded overview of many of the issues relevant here. I thought you might find it interesting. --Dcfleck 03:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"...now appears perfectly reasonable..."
Key word: appears. --Dcfleck 15:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow -- amazing work on the Anti-psychiatry page. I'm truly impressed. Scot →Talk 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket, I am just curious if it is OK with policy to translate the Anti-psychiatry article to Spanish and put it in the Wikipedia Spanish site? Regards Cesar Tort 23:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cesar. It is all in the public domain, so I see no reason why not. Rockpocket 19:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm on one of my Wiki-hiatuses at the moment, and probably won't be doing much editing for the next few weeks -- so no, I have no objections to the tag being removed. --Dcfleck 03:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Shield

As long as your insertions are not akin to the garbage I quoted, then I have no issue with them whatsoever. I note in your constant requests that I be "civil" to other editors, you have neglected to comment on [2] (with the statement "re") and [3] (with the statment "re"). I suggest that you just go ahead and make the article better, like Kazifel so "civilly" suggested I do so in [4] (with the statement "re"). I also note that you engaged in useless grandstading at [5] (the lack of one carrage return making an entire section revertable), and yet, I neglected to comment on such untill now. He, I might argue, who is without sin should cast the first stone. Hpuppet - «Talk» 21:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I justified why i felt you were being uncivil (using a solitary "whatever" as a edit summary is certainly impolite), and in response was unfailingly polite in doing so. You'll also notice i never "requested" anything, I merely "respectfully suggested" as i felt it would make your contributions all the more valuable. Should you choose to ignore that advice, then that is entirely your choice.
I agree that those comments you reference are uncivil also (making Kazifel's comments somewhat hypocritical). Those, however, were in a direct conversation between you and Kazifel and do not have any bearing on my point about the editor's whose work in the article you dismissed. My suggestion about civility is that your copyedit work could be much more efficient and helpful to Wikipedia if you were more sensititve to those whose work you were criticising. That suggestion, fairly obviously, applies to another editor who was being uncivil also. Nevertheless, i take your point.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "grandstanding". I was never actually suggesting that anyone would revert your work due to a lack of a carriage (hence my own immediate qualifier: "Clearly that would be nonsense" [6]). I was using an obviously exaggerated example to demonstrate why one should not equate content being meaningful with text being well written (as you suggested: "If it were meaningful, it would have been well written" [7]). That is not grandstanding in my understanding of the word. Seeing as i have cast no stones, and i'm not quite sure what "sins" i have committed, i welcome your thoughts, but in this case do not quite see the relevence. Rockpocket 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

User:216.20.115.37

Regarding this user's block, or any user's block, if you look on the top of the User Contributions page, (aka Special:Contributions/USERNAME), there is a link to the block log. I was going through the users in the AIV (or whatever its called) and I looked at the block log and saw it. Also, on the page, usually people list vandals using the {{vandal|USERNAME}} (such as Pepsidrinka (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)) and a block log link appears. Pepsidrinka 22:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello

Hello, I answered his message and left him links to our policy on attack pages and NPOV. I suggested he rewrite the article with less of both of those. You are right that article wouldn't survive on AfD. It would most likely be speedied there also. It has been deleted 4 times including two recreations. Have to wait and see what he wants. Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you didn't suggest it and I agree with everything you told him. Another of his articles has gone up on prod. At this point I don't yet know what his plans for the article are. Thank you for your good work also.--Dakota ~ ° 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by

Arguing with this guy Cesar is like going back to 1960 and arguing with Bruno Bettelheim himself. Neurodivergent 22:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please look at Talk:Biological psychiatry and give your opinion? Thanks. Joema 03:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Celtic

Hi, I don't know what happened with that edit. I must have made a mistake and edited an older version or something as I didn't intentionally remove your previous edit. Apologies. Al17 10:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Biopsych

Rockpocket: I have read JFW’s recent comments. Though he is very pro-psych he is nonetheless civil.

You may find useful these basic web sites and books of notable critics: Colin Ross [8], Robert Whitaker (author) [9], Peter Breggin [10] [11], Elliott Valenstein [12], Jay Joseph [13], and of course the peer-reviewed journal you mentioned [14].

I will write you here and not in the talk page since I cannot stand any more Ande B’s ad hominem insults. —Cesar Tort 08:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, though Thomas Szasz is widely known a leading critic of the legal, semantic and moral aspects of psychiatry, he wrote a stupendous book that specifically attacks biopsych: Pharmacracy [15]. —Cesar Tort 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration on Biological psychiatry

Rockpocket, I asked Cesar Tort and Ombudsman for mediation or arbitration. They didn't respond so regretfully we must proceed. Without mediation, we go straight to arbitration. If you're willing to support this, please read the below. I'll file the request later today, unless you suggest otherwise. Joema 19:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi Rockpocket:

I have just read Joema’s talk page (“arbitration request”). I don’t have the faintest idea what that means. Was I supposed to answer to her request? Looks so weird to me... —Cesar Tort 04:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar, i'll reply here to stop crosstalk with the debate on your page. I was concerned that the reason you hadn't responded to Joema's pleas for mediation was because you didn't understand the process. Basically, when there is a dispute on a Wikipedia issue where there are editors in entrenched positions (in this case, the continual addition and removal of the NPOV tag) the normal process is that all involved agree to an official mediator guiding all to a consensus. However, this requires that agreement of all involved (which was why Joema asked both you and others if you would agree to this). If some editors do not agree, then the next step it to go to the arbitration committee. Should they chose to hear the dispute, everyone will get the chance to put their point across and the committee will decide on the way forward based on the evidence presented to them. All editors must abide by the committee's decision or else they risk getting a ban. There are lots of different routes that they can take (such as chastising editors, banning them from editing certain article etc), but who knows what they will do in this case.
I don't know how wide the case will be, but if it is simply the NPOV tag that is to be decided on then i would suggest you decide whether you still believe the tag should be there then state that position. It is entirely up to you, of course, but my humble opinion is that Joema et al's position is a better interpretation of policy than Ombudsman's and that they will prove successful should ArbCom hear the case. I believe NPOV is about tone and content, not about an alternate opinion of the validity of the concept. I could be wrong though. Should you decide that you no longer in dispute with the position put forward, i would suggest you note that also, as it might make things easier for everyone involved and it may distance you from 'the fallout'. YOu may also with to note that you were not clear on how the dispute resolution process worked until it had already reached ArbCom. Hope that helps. Follow the links above if you want to learn more. Rockpocket 06:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Please don't edit the templates directly. Arbitrators (or Clerks) use those to open new cases (if accepted). Please look on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for the case concerning you, and if you have a statement to make, create a new section in your cases area (newer sections towards the bottom usually) and do so. To be clear: The links above to "template" and "Arbitration evidence" are both templates and should not be edited directly (I've struck them out so people will hopefully avoid editing them directly). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, okay, I reverted that one as well. =) It is a good idea to collect evidence and put it together though, so you can use a userspace page for that (for example, you could make a page at User:Rockpocket/Arbitration/Biological psychiatry/Evidence and put notes/links/diffs there). Evidence is only necessary if your arbitration case is accepted, but like I said, it's a good idea to start now if you have reason to believe it'll be accepted. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


John car

On the matter of the jon car article(i am new and not sure if you will recive this) there was a paper printed that mentioned the internet hacks and drug deals. If you are going to subject something for deleteion then i would hope next time you take more care in discovering if it is real or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Albinoguy (talk • contribs).

Vandalized

You got hit. Teke 18:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Thanks for reverting the vandalism. Sadly it didn't even have wit or originality in its favour. Rockpocket 18:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

TO: Celtic fan

For your information I did not revert to my preferred version -- didn't you see the Celtic icon?? I reverted re Celtic history, "anti-Celtic" paranoia and the fact that Celtic fanzine was forced to fire Kevin McKenna b/c... all important material that censors (like Demiurge) and Celtic fans (fifth columnist Irish Catholics like you who "live in Scotland", but aren't Scots) are trying to censor on Wikipedia, but you won't be able to. Too bad you didn't bother to review correctly.

And like I told Camillus don't threaten me, nor are you and I on a first name basis (regardless of whatever first name you think is mine). You have a certain period of time to make valid edits to my version; wholesale censorship or gutting will be rv eventually, and you know I cannot be blocked for long, so don't bother threatening it. User your editorial skills wisely and fairly and we can get along. 70.19.64.178 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I know perfectly well who you are from your rhetoric, which you have only confirmed with your "like I told Camillus" comment. I made no threats, i simply informed you of the process what will occur should you continue to insert your POV into articles from this IP (though, of course, you are well aware of that). Leaving out the flag as an attempt to maintain the rest of the opinion piece is hardly "not reverting". I'd appreciate if you refrain from unfounded and incorrect personal comments about me (I genuinely do not know what a "fifth columnist" is, but it doesn't sound like a plaudit). Again, should you revert i expect you will be blocked from this account and then the merry dance can start again from another IP. Rockpocket 19:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that you are intentionally censoring facts regarding the history of Celtic (whitewashing the true motives of sectarianism and iredentism that propelled its creation), the facts re Kevin McKenna and the book that was written about Celtic paranoia. You are admitting it herein. Thus, I have no option but to continue to fight for the truth against you and your fellow Irish Catholic censors, and your incurious lackeys that help do your dirty work. The dance will continue as the censorship and Catholic apologetics I have witnessed on every site touched by Demiurge (and doubtless others), for example, leave me no other option. 70.19.64.178 19:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where in my reply you think I "admit that [I am] intentionally censoring facts", but you are mistaken in that assumption. There is nothing factual about your opinion that "Ne Temere intermarriages" were "cause for serious, almost hysterical, concern by Irish priests and bishops."
There is nothing factual about assserting "the raison d'etre of Glasgow Celtic,... was to ensure that the Irish Catholic migrants to Scotland did not assimilate entirely into Scottish or British society". Not withstanding the total irrelevence to the a football club, your inclusion as justification that "The issuance of the Ne Temere by the Vatican in 1908 changed much of that thinking, but as the Irish Post (est. 1970), the news weekly of the Irish fifth columnists in Britain, once put it "...[t]he Irish are integrated, not assimilated..." lacks any sources. Finally, your comment that naming clubs for the sole purpose of "thumbing their nose at British and Scottish society" is so incredibly POV that its laughable. Thus, your additions were almost entirely POV agenda pushing, the very same thing you were banned indefinately for. I am not, as you suggest, part of some sort of pro-catholic cabal (a brief perusal of my edits history will reveal that), i just happen to have a fondness for Celtic FC for entirely non religious or political reasons. Should you come up with appropriate sources for your comments about the detailed social impact of genesis of the club, phrase them in a NPOV manner, (and then add them to the article History of Celtic F.C.) then i will happily support your case. Until then, i'm not interested in further discussing the matter with you, as you seem incapable of communicating without resorting to insults and insinuation of bad faith. Rockpocket 22:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

property vs people in oz

JustthoughtIdlet you know that it is indeed relevant to australia. Why cant a fact(and an important fact) be stated plainly.Andit is intherightsestion as itgetstothe fundemental nature of austrlian polictical settlement Melbob 02:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

di-dehydroepiandrosterone

There isn't really "original research" on that page. Instead, there are links to Google showing that the sites in question have no pages. Google is the authority, not me.

There are many articles in Wikipedia on questionable or fraudulent medical practices. For example: [Colon hydrotherapy], [ear candling], etc.

When there is widespread publicity for a fraud, it is important that information about it be disseminated.

Also, why was this page okay until I pointed out that the chemical doesn't exist and is a fraud? It looks to me as if you are working with them and trying to do damage control, so that people can't find out about this.

--Jahat 06:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no other place on the web that I've seen where the information about the fact that these claims are false can be found.

If you cause it to be removed, thousands of people who might not have been defrauded will be defrauded.

Please reconsider.

--Jahat 09:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not that there's no mention that there are fake products. It's that there's no mention that PHERLURE is fake. A generic disclaimer that there are fake products does nothing to let people know that a specific product is being promoted with fake websites and fraudulent research.

You say that wikipedia isn't here to give advice, but this is not advice. This is information showing that a particular heavily promoted product is fake and is being promoted with deliberately created fake evidence. If people come to Wikipedia to find out what it is, they SHOULD be able to find a page which shows them that it's a fake. There are numerous pages here dealing with fraudulent and mythological things, and this is another of those. It deserves a page here debunking it, and wikipedia users deserve to be able to get the information they need. --Jahat 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As you say "Verifiability". I have included links to major authorities which verify all the statements. The authorites are Medline and Google. There is nothing non-verifiable in what I posted. It's all right there and anyone can view the links themselves. --Jahat 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that all the OR is removed from the page, how about removing the AFD status? --69.3.233.183 12:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not authorised to remove an AfD once it is in progress. The community consensus was the the article did not meet notability criteria and thus it has been deleted. Rockpocket (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tags for Images

I appretiate all your help and info on Unseen Vision, I do not take offense and I realize the comunity can and will decide, I am simply just trying to do something nice for someone. But if it has to go then it has to go. I do however have a question, and I figure since you are very knoledgable about this site, you would know. I am putting a picture in my user page and I created it from scratch, which would be the best {{Tag}} to use? I want to release it for free use, but so no one can edit it because it contains specific information and pictures of my friends (Who have all released copywrite beacuse they post the pictures freely on myspace.com). Any information you can provide me with would be most helpfull. Thank you. Vincent 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Just dropping by to say hello, and thanks for the info KnightLago 02:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Camberwell High Liberal Club

Did you really mean to remove the AfD tag that User:Blnguyen switched to, when the school chums kept removing the {{db}} tags? Shenme 06:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's OK. It makes some rather dubious claims to notability now, and AfD creates a new page so that they can't just remove the db.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Marty McAndrews

I fail to see what the problem is with the Marty McAndrews article. He is an aspiring film director whose stock is rising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhatchYouKnowAboutDat (talk • contribs).

I'm afraid i don't know what you are talking about. I assume it tagged it for deletion. If so, it was probably because it did not satisfy WP:BIO. Rockpocket (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

I've wrapped up the move project for Ozark-St. Francis National Forest. If only I'd known what I was getting myself into when I started sifting through the list of needed articles. Thanks for reasurring me on making the move. I find that WP:BOLD often conflicts with my own philosophy of "don't do things that have a strong chance of getting your ass kicked." Consequentially 02:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help on the redirect ..... Wikipedia ... is challenging lol Kyros 04:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect Pitch

Hello Rockpoket: We believe we have the right to say that Perfect Pitch is our registered trademark. Many others define their trademarks on Wikipedia. Our trademark is listed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as incontestible. Our trademark, Perfect Pitch, has been in use for over 25 years. Please tell us if you have any further objections. Respectfully, Gary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aempinc (talk • contribs).

Rocketpocket: We just received your message about external links to web sites. We are sorry about this, we are totally new to this format. We would respectfully ask you then, to remove the link of our competitor, Aruffo.com. The first link listed is a commercial link which sells a product similar to ours. Perhaps you have permitted Aruffo.com because you felt there was also valuable content at his site? If this is so, we should inform you that we also have much free and valuable information about perfect pitch and ear training on our site, complete with color graphics and explanations. Our courses are being used at colleges and schools around the world, so our site is certainly educational. If our product cannot be linked, we feel this Aruffo.com should also be removed. Thank you, Sherri —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aempinc (talk • contribs).

Thanks again for your response. Yes, our product is certainly notable enough. We are in fact the #1 best-selling ear training method in the world for 25 years. Any of your musical friends would likely have heard of our course if they read musician's magazines, as we are the largest magazine advertiser for musician's media. Our right to the trademark Perfect Pitch was granted because our mark was determined to have DISTINCTION, a legal term used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This means, that through long use our term has come to be commonly associated with our product. Further, as I mentioned, due to the length of time we have used our trademark, our mark is deemed incontestible. We would not be willing to have our mark listed under any other heading than exactly what it is: Perfect Pitch. If you are suggesting (and I'm not sure you are) that we place our listing under any other wording, such as "perfect pitch course," then this would not be representative of our actual and legal word mark. We do look to you as a knowledgeable and senior user, so in light of this information, could you please advise us how we could handle this? Thanks so much, Gary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aempinc (talk • contribs).

Rocketpoket: I have reread your message, and I now think I understand what you mean. We would have to make a new page which explains our course, and then on the "perfect pitch" page, it would list two choices, one to go to our course, and one to go to "absolute pitch." Is this what you mean? I have also read the page about notability. We can certainly justify that our course is unquestionably the most notable of any ear training method. There is no other method that is more widely known. Thanks, Gary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aempinc (talk • contribs).

Thanks Rocketpocket for your response and for your help! Sherri —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aempinc (talk • contribs).

ELF

An anon is labelling the ELF as a terrorist group. I'm near breaking 3rr on this, so I need someone else to go there and help me out. I think that we should go with the same consensus as on the ALF page, although there does not seem to have been any discussion on the ELF page of this issue yet. Still...we don't even label al-Qaeda a terrorist group. The Ungovernable Force 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, though it seems Slim had warned him or her off, by the time i got there. I'll keep an eye on it also, in case the anon decided to come back for a second try. Rockpocket (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying

Hi, thanks for the message. I did not intend on removing your tag, I think I edited over that because I was in the edit page for a long time (while writing). I'm barely getting used to the system but so far, so good. Juliofranco 09:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Biopsych arbitration case

Rockpocket, please read this section closely and make any comments you think appropriate under the "comment by parties" headings: RFA Cesar Tort, Ombudsman proposed findings of fact. Joema 17:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Tables in wikipedia

J/w if you could point me to guidelines for marking up tables in wikipedia. I am starting Comparison_of_MacBook_and_MacBook_Pro --AlanH 17:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/c/User_talk%7ERockpocket_Archive_2_2546.html"