User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Deletion?

Hey there. You had left a message on my talk page in regards to the deletion of one of my Wikipedia article contributions: Don't Hate, Syncopate (DHS). To be honest, I'm a bit confused as to why it was deleted. If you could respond and give some reasons to aid in my understanding, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joe Yippee (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks...

Thanks for your reply regarding the "Don't Hate, Syncopate" article. I still feel as if the article is significant, because the band in question represented a rather well-known and influential Christian college in Manitoba, Canada. However, I can understand why you have in place the guidelines that you do, and I can respect them. I trust your judgment in what is deemed as appropriate article material for Wikipedia. Thanks again for your attention to this matter.

OK Rocky!

Thats OK Rock! I just wanted to clear the air between Gansdalf and David D. At least David nad Gansdalf now know what I think. thanks! 8-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.145.192 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Light Current on David D.'s talk page

I appreciate your position, but I think you may be missing some important points. The first is that chasing a banned user around is essentially feeding the troll. Instead of constantly editing another user's talk page, posting the banned user's IP address at AIV or asking a well-informed admin to block would have been much more effective. Your actions did not silence him. Secondly, the ban policy says that the edits may be reverted, not that they must be reverted. There is considerable dispute about this process throughout Wikipedia, and it is extremely unevenly enforced. I can even think of one episode recently where the enforcing user got blocked for doing exactly what you did, that is removing posts from another user's talk page even though they had been made by a banned user.

I have been aware of the Light Current situation for some time and have read the history and the AN/I documentation. Yes, he is annoying. But allowing him to get under your skin to the point that you're receiving warnings about your actions (whether warranted or not) indicates that you may have personalized the situation. If he had been editing your talk page, or interfering in the development of an article, your actions would have been entirely reasonable. I encourage you to take a step back whenever you run into Lightbringer or his various socks and IPs, though, and have disinterested admins and users address the situation. He continued to edit David D.'s page not to annoy David D. (who had been signed off for hours), but to irritate you and distract you from whatever editing tasks you would ordinarily have been doing. Risker 13:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Rockpocket, I just nominated List of atonal pieces for deletion. Did I do this correctly? The instructions on Template:AfD in 3 steps got me so confused! Thanks! S.dedalus

Some Help with References

Hey, haven't seen you in a while! I hate to use you like this - but I've looked for a while now and I can't seem to find 2 things I'm looking for- just curious as to if you know or not. Firstly, I've seen the <refrences/> tag used in some weird ways (like small, or with columns) - but I can't seem to find a page that will tell me how! And secondly (more complicated), I once saw a page that cited full quotations by linking to the bottom of the page where the quotations were. Like, you know how for references when you click on the ¹ it brings you to the bottom of the page to the note? Well for this you would click on ^1aand it would lead you to the quote (which was persumably gotten from 1). again, sorry if it seems like I'm using you like a hound dog - but if you have any luck I'd really appreciate the help!Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

O wow thanks for the quick response - sadly though I believe I've scanned most of those links - perhaps it's just not written down anywhere - but I'll check the links again. As for the quotes - I think what I saw might have been something not commonly used, like maybe just that page - it was actually diff. then ref format - I think a guy made it specialy for that or something. It was pretty strange. Again though, thanks for the help!Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)}

Ahhh! I don't know how I missed that! It feels like I went to every link on the page EXCEPT that. Thanks so much!!!Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)}

WOHO- found the crazy quotation thing I was talking about - but it's complicated - so I just spent an hour looking for something I'm going to give up on ... well if you want to know what I was talking about - go to Spider-Man - and from there the bottom of the footnotes section - it's the 1a stuff.Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 06:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow - I'm pretty sure I just threw out any courtesy with this guys (uhoh - hope he's not an admin). i'm sooo pissed off though ... do you think I could potentially get in trouble for [this]? Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)}

I don't think you will get in trouble, but if you are a feeling angry - take a break before replying. I would recommend waiting to see the result of the TfD. If the template is kept, then you have a stronger argument for re-inserting it into articles. If it is deleted, then the dispute is no longer relevent anyway. Rockpocket 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please be careful of edits like this where you change a comment that has already been responded to. This is discouraged, as it disrupts the flow of conversation and confuses issues. If you wish to reconsider something you have said, you should strike out the text, write your correction afterwards and re-sign. (like this withdrawn on consideration Rockpocket 17:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

Haha - actually I was changing that because I assumed he meant one thing the first time I wrote it, and then realized that he could be refereing to two things, but when I tried to change it, there was an edit conflict. However, I did rewrite it, but I used it in a conditional (if you mean this ... coment goes here, if you mean this ... other comment). Do you think you could take a look at this Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Obnoxious? I'd like to get another outside opinion - but pretty much the story so far with me is, I've been saying that these two templates are completely different - and thus there is no reason to delete one of them (since things like color, which has been noted, can be changed easily). I mean, it's a long discussion, but I'd really appreciate it if you read it and voted on it. I mean even if you vote delete I can get some feedback for a future template. Thanks for the help, 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Ok I swear this will be the last time i bother you (today, fine, for the next two days), but I just wanted to let you know I've combined a few things people suggested and I have a temporary new sig ... how's it look (DON'T LOOK AT THE CODE - if you don't look at how long the code is then it's fine)ɗάɳɪзɺʄʘḶʃŏɱ © A »block me 22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The signature doesn't resolve properly on my browser. I basically get a load of coloured open boxes and a link to your Block User page with the option to "block me" (which, I would strongly recommend against as there is no good reason for having that in your sig, and I would expect some admin will look at the horrible block of code and accept your invitation). Check out WP:SIG for some guidance about what the generally accepted standards are. BTW, I'll have a look at the TfD later this eveing when I get some more time. Rockpocket 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, although that's really strange with the browser thing - just out of curiosity what browser are you usuing? So far I've only seen it on Safari, IE7 and Flock - o you know what it probably is? The strange characters i used in the main part of it - tell me if this looks any better (btw, the block me thing was meant as a joke - kinda simmilar to the Happy Bunny humour (signature=bunny, then block me!)).danielfolsom © A 00:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was using some earlier version of IE, perhaps IE6, on a work PC. It looks fine on Firefox 2.0.0.3 (what I'm using at the moment), though it will not last long before someone requests you reduce the code. Rockpocket 05:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah your right - I'm just waiting for a few things to clear up - then i'll change it - although i have reduced it to 283 characters - not bad since at one point it was at 700danielfolsom ©

Child porn

Thanks; I thought it was a joke. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Guideline pages?

How are Wikipedia guideline pages created? In response to the discussion I started here, I would like to come up with a page for Wikipedia: Dealing with suicidal individuals. Is there a procedure for proposing and writing guidelines? Thanks! S.dedalus 03:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal considerations and my understanding that the Ref Desk is not meant to be for offering such advice notwithstanding, WP:HCP is what you want. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started? is also helpful. Personally, I think this proposal is more suited to an essay (see here for the difference), but there is no harm in proposing it as a guideline in the first instance. Rockpocket 04:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey! So I've been patrolling the recent pages section and I've been watching some controversial articles, and whenever someone vandalizes them I'm noticing that they've had a lot of previous warnings. Would something like (the following) be worth creating. It would probably be in the userspace since I don't expect people besides me to use it - but the goal is essentially personalized begging.

You seem to be showing a consistant pattern of vandalism,and I am now pleading with you to stop. If you do not head this warning - serious consequences may result, and I can assure you that no one wants that to happen. If you are just vandalizing pages for fun - I must ask - was it really worth it - and don't you have anything better to do than sit around and temporarily disrupt articles. I would like to encourage you to edit Wikipedia legitimately. It's a project that you can have a lot of fun with - doing just about anything (you can write, you can take pictures, you can even work on the technical stuff with templates)! If you choose to join the Wikipedia cause, I'd be happy to work with you and help you if you ever need it, but if you do not - then I must hope not to see you again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

danielfolsom © 18:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just jaded, but in my experience vandals rarely respond to appeals to reason, infact they rarely respond to anything short of a block. I don't see why you couldn't try it though, it might work occasionally. Rockpocket 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Win-win

Hi Rockpocket. Thanks for your message and sorry for the delay. Win-win is an easy principle to state, but not always so easy to achieve. It involves an occasional abandonment of the ego, and that first requires a person to be aware of whether they're being driven by their ego. Ego has become a dirty word, equivalent in most people's eyes to something like self-centredness. I disagree with that. We all have an ego, and we all need to. It's an essential part of our psyche, but it needs to be kept on a tight leash. If we let it, it can become our driving force. Sometimes that's ok, but often it places us somewhere other than in the driver's seat of our own lives, which is not ok.

My standpoint is that in most human interactions, there needs to be win-win for it to work optimally. Win-lose is, ultimately, lose-lose. And lose-lose speaks for itself. By "win", I don't mean as in a competitive situation like a race, where there is one winner and all the others are losers. By "win" in relation to the Ref Desk, I mean each person can come away feeling that their involvement has been of value, and respected as such by the others, even if their opinion or argument is not ultimately the one accepted by the questioner. Although they don't always apply on the ref desk, I'm a great believer in the rules of brainstorming, where all contributions are of equal value. Not necessarily equal value in the sense of scientific or historical accuracy, but equal value in the sense that everyone is entitled to their opinion, to express it in a way that doesn't pour shit on other's opinions, and for it be received without shit being poured on it. It's absolutely fine to disagree with someone who maintains the earth is flat, but disagreement with their opinion should not amount to judgment of them personally as an "idiot" (or whatever). The person can be told that there's abundant scientific proof that the earth is spherical, and still come away thinking "Fair enough, you have your story and I have mine, and I'm sticking with mine", or "OK. Maybe I should investigate this a little further". That would be a win for them, because they have been respected enough (despite their loopy opinion) to be given a fair rejoinder that doesn't get into personal abuse. And the answerer has the satisfaction of knowing that they also have a viewpoint with which every scientist, and most school children, would concur. That's a win for them. This is one simple way that win-win can be demonstrated. In my view, it's not personalising it to the slightest degree - rather, the opposite, it avoids personalising it.

That'll do for now, but I'm sure I could write a book on this, given time. I'd love to hear your comments on the above when you have a chance. Cheers. JackofOz 01:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

It means a great deal coming from you. Thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rockpocket!

Wow, thanks for the praise Rockpocket! I’ve got the warm fuzzys. :-) S.dedalus 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

re: The Riches

You're right, and I'm willing to give that that he didn't steal the money to keep them from being able to follow very readily, but the current phrasing is incorrect; they didn't flee *because* of Wayne stealing, he stole the money after he hatched the plan to run to get her out of the marriage. So I'm changing it, without the speculation, since '...flees to avoid an arranged marriage for Di Di, and because Wayne has stolen the clan's hoard of cash...' is also incorrect (and was actually the thing that was bothering me about the phrase, and I should have kept to NPOVery. My bad ;-) ). - Thespian 05:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

the new ref desk project

Good luck with that project it looks pretty cool. Feel free to farm out stuff my way if you get swamped (molecular/development/metabolism/genetics/plants). David D. (Talk) 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

New Format

Hey, I was wondering if you could help me out with this new format thing (either there's a new format - or god damn my browser sucks). When you look at a diff page, it appears now it shows you a bit more of the context of the change by placing the text in a gray box and highlighting it in green - and while I guess I understand that - do you know what the triangle thing is? (In case you think I'm high - the triangle thing is ... well ... a green triangle inside a grey box - I tried clicking on it ... but nothing happened.)Appreciate the help XD.danielfolsom© 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh you know what I bet it is - I have this editting tool installed inmy monobook thing (which I wish I could remember how to get to so I could delete it - as well as whatever else I have in my monobook) that allows me to do extra stuff while editing. I guess he just updated it. Sorry about thatdanielfolsom© 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A.Z.

Hi Rockpocket. I had already asked A.Z. to continue any further discussion on my talk page. However, his latest post was just screaming out for rebuttal, which was too tempting to ignore. I'll be good from now on. Cheers. JackofOz 02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask a favor?

I've backed off of editing and submitted an RfC for Chicago Sun-Times. There are a group of editors (I'm assuming they are Chinese, though that assumption may be faulty) who are miffed about columnist Michael Sneed's initial reporting that the shooter at Virginia Tech may have been a Chinese student. They want to drag her name, along with that of the Sun-Times (and by extension other news organizations in this country) through the collective mud (and don't care if they are violating WP:POINT). When warned by myself, several authors began waging what amounts to an edit war with myself. I pulled back from my most recent edit after realizing that I had inadvertently violated 3RR (mind you another editor who is somewhat miffed with me on an unrelated front also sent me a formal warning of my 3RR violation). I'd like to get someone else to address the issue, but would like to pull back from the issue myself for now. My personal feeling is that if the AfD that would delete the full article on the media reporting passes, the point will be moot, and there will be no logical reason for the section to remain in the Sun-Times article. The other side is that I'm probably taking this a bit more personally than I should (I'm a television web producer for an NBC station by trade, so it hits a bit close to home). Several of these editors have already ganged up on me in varying forms to insist that I am biased against them, to the point of even asking how I feel on the Don Imus mess (which is immaterial, but once a mob gets started, they're difficult to stop). Anyway, can you take a quick look for me to see if I'm going overboard? Thanks. I appreciate it... --Mhking 23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Sun-Times

Thank you for your recent edit on Chicago Sun-Times. I am the person who holds a different view from Mhking on the inclusion of Controversy section in the article. To abide by wikepedia’s rules and regulations, I want to approach you as the first step to solve the dispute. The following are some clarifications from my side. First and first most, there is no sock puppetry on the edit of the article as you speculated. From my contribute page, you can find I sent invitations to other established editors for them to pitch in. Second, MhKing holds a strong view that the controversy is immaterial and non-consequential, hence not worth being mentioned in Wikipedia. However, from Talk:Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed, you can find there are many people holding a different view. Third, I admit that in the beginning, the writing of the section clearly violated some rules such as WP:POINT, after many counter-balancing edits, it’d been clear of any of these charges. Please see the latest edition. Forth, the current discussion on the deletion of Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre is about the notability of the incidents as a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. There is no question whether or not the incidents could be mentioned inside other related articles. As a matter of fact, in Virginia Tech massacre, there is a section dedicated to this topic. Obviously, I am a new Wikipedia editor but I am also a firm believer of Wikipedia. I want to resolve this dispute inside the framework of rules and regulations. If I want to re-instate the section, of course whose writing must be up to the standards of Wikipedia, what is the course of venue I should take? Again, thank you for your response to this RfC.

--Dongdongdog 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input on my discussion page. It definitely sheds some light on the issue. I will ponder upon it and act accordingly. Many thanks. --Dongdongdog 22:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Finding a banned user

I noticed at this edit you reverted a change because it was made by a banned user. How did you know the user was banned? There's nothing on the talk or contributions page which would indicate that. Matchups 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Matchups 03:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your very prompt answer to my question --wpktsfs 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

animal testing ref

Hi -- I just did leave a ref there -- unfort. I have to go to work now.

I've thought about joining the animal rights list, although I'd rather join an animal welfare one! But I haven't got time to organize it myself.

Thanks for your quite sensible edits. It's funny how much more strict people are on pages like this. For comparisson, Jane Goodall's page doesn't have a single reference...--Jaibe 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Suicidal troll

Advice noted; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Copies?

Hi Rockpocket, I have reason to believe that the Wikipedia pages Navohar, A Matter of Profit, Songs of Power, and possibly The Goblin Wood (all books by Hilari Bell) are possibly copied from the blurbs of the books or from other websites. For instance this appears to be identical to the Navohar page, and A Matter of Profit was obviously copied from this website. This is a copyright violation isn’t it? How this should be handled. Can they all be speedy deleted and should the creator of the pages be warned? Thanks! S.dedalus 06:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the rd post. Yes, I got a bit over enthusiastic with that. I’ve changed the wording to something a bit more neutral. S.dedalus 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)