User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 32

Domer48 and ROI article

Since you appear to have an interest in Domer48, I'm informing you that I reverted an edit by Domer48. Regards. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

... and he/she has restored his/her edit. Regards agian. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

...an edit war has opened. There is an entry on ANI (adds: actually there are several). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My blunder

Sorry Rock. I thought the IP was a veteran editor, with a new IP account (who might've been familiar with my wacky side). I see now, that the IP is a newbie; thus my blunder. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a neutral source?

So Rock; you think discrimination against Catholics/nationalists by the NI State is sufficiently in question to merit as "cn" tag? Really? Would we need a reference to say that the sun rises over Dublin bay and sets on Galway Bay? Sarah777 (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, how about unblocking Domer? Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the sentence in question you would be aware I'm not requesting a source for evidence of "discrimination against Catholics/nationalists by the NI State", I'm requesting a source for the assertion that was the cause of the Troubles. If that causality is as self apparent as you appear to think, adding a number of neutral sources should be a cinch. Rockpocket 22:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it was obviously just one of the causes. Now, what about Domer? Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already addressed that here. See, here is the problem, Sarah. Before, when I made a block or did some admin action in this area - despite doing my best to keep out of the content issues - a number of editors accused me of being involved and said I was biased and should not be using my tools in this area. So last year I decided to give those editors what they wanted and stop doing admin work in this area. (Indeed, I was so sick of the abuse that I've pretty much stopped all admin work all together, the only reason I've kept the tools is to do some uncontroversial housekeeping stuff here and there on Wikiproject: Animal Rights). That left me free to express my opinion on Ireland content issues as I saw fit as a regular editor.

Now the same editors who accused me of being involved then are demanding that I use my tools now. Well how the hell could I be involved then, when I never expressed any opinions on content, yet not be involved now - when that is all I have done for the last 6 months? I'm amazed you can't see the hypocrisy there. So do me a favour a drop the snide remarks. Just like you, I have expressed my opinion on this block and urged a completely uninvolved admin to review it. Now is the time to wait for the admin to complete his review and in the meantime you, Vk and Dunc are not doing Domer any favours in whipping up the hysteria on his talk page. You spend enough time castigating admins for abusing their tools, so I'd expect a little more respect for someone trying to use them as responsibly. Rockpocket 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK Rock - my apologies for the "strong arm" stuff. You did get some unjustified flak in the past - I cannot deny that. Sarah777 (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Js5.jpg

File:Js5.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Spider anatomy.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Spider anatomy.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Thought you might be interested in this. I know you had to handle the tough stuff .. thought this might give you a bit of a smile. — Ched :  ?  05:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Melanotan II and now afamelanotide

Hello, as you've taken protective action relative to my editing on melanotan II I must admit to you that I am the owner of Melanotan.org. Relative to what I've read on the talk pages of the melanotan related articles perhaps it is not my place to be editing on these articles but at this point melanotan.org has gotten enough mention in the press relative to these two peptides across a number of magazines and news reports on CBS San Francisco and NBC Salt Lake City (with the BMJ being the most established ref.) that relative to the phenomenon of these drugs being used by the general public despite a lack of Drug Regulatory agency approval there probably should be mention of the site in the article (rather than merely a link). Short of this I would argue that the site is relative enough to the two articles to have a link to it especially considering that Melanotan.org is not in the business of selling the peptides (or even profiting from traffic to the site). I've recently become aware of the owner of the sites melanotan.eu and melanotan.cn attempting to spam the melanotan II article (which you reverted) and short of that remove links to melanotan.org. The reason this is happening is that I contacted him about his plagiarism of the following article http://www.muscletalk.co.uk/article-melanotan.aspx on his sites (ostensibly to increase the number of visitors to his site and therefore increase traffic to his Google ads and thereby his revenue from them). I wrote to him some weeks ago to encourage him to instead produce original content on his sites and help inform the public about them in a productive way. I know of his plagiarism due to the fact that he previously plagiarized content from melanotan.org (and still does under his "scientific link") and I've also contacted the author of the article I cited above who informed me that he hadn't given permission for it to be used elsewhere. Obviously melanotan.eu and melanotan.cn's owner didn't take kindly to my recommendation and now is actively working through deceit (similar to the deceptive edit summary on this edit where he didn't merely 'add a link' but actually replaced a link) to paint melanotan.org as something that it is not. Given these facts how should this proceed? Thanks, -Scott 67.102.216.110 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Scott. As someone with an academic interest in the peptides, I've visited your site myself in the past and - while wondering quite what the motivation is of the person hosting it - have never considered it to be overtly promotional or commercial and thus violate WP:SPAM. Therefore I've never had a major problem with linking to it on our articles, since its certainly the most informative of all the non-scientific melanotan sites out there. The same cannot be said for the other sites you mention.

However, since you have a clear conflict of interest, I would strongly urge you to stop re-adding the link yourself and leave it up to other editors to manage the external links. It may be that the consensus is to remove all of them, I don't know, but I personally don't have a problem with the article as it stands, and it doesn't appear as if other editors do either. If the spamming continues at afamelanotide I will protect that article too. Rockpocket 07:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I believe in these peptides and the promise their usage holds to benefit humankind. I've believed this since I took the time to learn about the peptides back in 1999 and my belief has only strengthened as the years have gone by. In accordance with this belief I've endeavored to provide a helpful and informative site about the peptides open to the public starting the day after I began to learn about them myself. To be honest I don't know what will ultimately become of Melanotan.org. It has been and continues to be a big pleasure to learn about the peptides from individuals who've shared details of their own research (both amateur and otherwise) relative to them and also it has been a pleasure to work in an area that is at the forefront of a promising revolution of melanocortin peptide based therapies. This desire to be a part of this revolution in some substantial form has really driven me to a large extent. Now Melanotan.org is starting to get recognition for the role it has played relative to these peptides and their usage. As such I would argue that given this recognition Melanotan.org likely merits mention in the articles about these peptides. As I review the talk pages I see where another party with a conflict of interest had some say in integrating information about the peptides (and their company) into the article and based upon that it would seem logical that the same process of informational expansion be applied in the case of melanotan.org. I'm unsure of what all the requirements are for a website to have an independent article about it here on Wikipedia but I suspect that Melanotan.org already qualifies for such a thing or else is approaching qualification based upon the number of significant reports and articles that have been made mentioning or otherwise covering it. I suppose I will have to research this to fully understand the steps required by Wikipedia for these editorial possibilities. Thanks again, -Scott 67.102.216.110 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its fine for you to continue to contribute to the talk pages of the relevant articles, and even edit the articles if you wish. But its important that you declare your COI before you do any editing that could be construed as being a conflict (such as adding links to your site or referencing it) and defer to those without a conflict if they dispute it. Note that the other editor you mention was very open about his position in the company, and made sure he ran his proposed edits through neutral editors before he added them. I would recommend using the same strategy if you wanted to edit these articles.

Your site would have to meet the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (web) to have its own article. I don't know for sure, but I would guess it does not do so quite yet. Rockpocket 23:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings again, I have started a discussion about this here. Thanks. Scott - Melanotan (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR - Bhoys from Seville

Hi Rockpocket, by my reckoning you're at 4 reverts in 24 hours. I'm not looking to make an issue of it, but the sources you keep adding don't support the text you prefer. --hippo43 (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that is not the case. Adding new content, in this case citations that you requested, is not a revert (since it does not involve returning the article to a previous version). I have reverted three times in 24hrs [1], [2], [3]. Mainly because you are removing perfectly reliable sources that perfectly supportive if the content they follow. You, in contrast, have reverted 4 times in the last 24hrs by removing these citations: [4][5][6][7] You have also achieved the near impossible - you have found something that Vintagekits and I agree on. Since two editors have now disputed your interpretation that these sources are not good enough, rather than continuing to remove them please address the core issue on the talk page. I trust this can now be resolved without reports to the 3RR noticeboard. Rockpocket 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Animal welfare, AR Assessment

Hello. I have a doubt about Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights and AR Assessment with some articles. May I make an AR Assessment too to articles about animal welfare, as Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong)? It's article about an animal welfare organisation, not about an animal rights organisation, and, for example, the Animal welfare article himself is not in the scope of AR Wikiproject (or is not assessed as that). I know animal rights and animal welfare are really a different thing, but the welfare of animals is undoubtedly a important matter to animal rights and there isn't a WikiProject Animal welfare. On the other hand, the Scope of the project doesn't talks about Animal welfare articles, but some of the articles about animal welfare have a AR Assessment. What do you think? Akhran (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I think that animal welfare articles should probably fall within the remit of the WikiProject Animal rights. After all, the same issues are involved - even if the philosophical positions are different. We also include articles about scientific experiments on animals in the project, for example. Rockpocket 18:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Then I will make Animal righs WikiProject assesment for more articles, when I finish the importance assessment for the ones are started. Akhran (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement

You are mentioned Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vintagekits here and may wish to comment. Bastun^nutsaB 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rock, have you read this? Is there such a crime as "harassment through vindictive reporting" or some such? Bastun must be sailing close to the wind vis a vis Vk. Sarah777 (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call Vintagekits' posting on the talkpage of someone Arbcom had said he was to avoid unnecessary interaction with as "harassment through vindictive reporting". Bastun^nutsaB 12:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

unnecessary being the important word, the matter concerned him and named him he is well intitled to contribute. BigDunc^Talk 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the the request has been closed without action, so no harm done. Lets hope Vk's new, mature attitude towards consensus holds when the action doesn't involve the co-ordinated hamstringing of his nemesis. Rockpocket 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Untroubling Waters

Hi there, Rp. Nice to see you being peacemaker once again. I have no idea what the questions mean, but then, I don't expect to be able to understand. Others do -expect to be able to understand, that is- and while I can't accuse them of being saintly, they have been sorely tried. // BL \\ (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

One tries, Bielle. Those physics types do tend to get a bit touchy over the misrepresentation of their fermions and quarks, don't they? By the way, is it someone's birthday tomorrow? If so, I hope they enjoy it. Rockpocket 23:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

De-linking from common sense??

So Rock, look at this. I guess the intrigues of the Byzantine Administration was never a patch on the Wiki version! Another editor gone! As I fairly randomly de-link dates when I come across them in the form Day, Month and Year - I guess I could face a trial shortly. And I thought I was merely applying the Wiki MOS. You can't be too careful where terror reigns, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK - I see you got there before me. Sarah777 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I regularly de-link dates too, Sarah, so I may find myself on trial beside you. I have not read the horribly lengthy Arb case in its entirety, but my understanding is that the issue is more one of edit-warring than delinking. But based upon their bizarre proposed sanctions on John, one can't help but feel most of the Arbs could not have read the evidence either (NewYorkBrad perhaps being the honorable exception). Rockpocket 01:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The last discusion page

Hello, that's the last orphan because merge discussion page that have the AR Assessment tag: Talk:Declaration on Great Apes

Could be too deleted as the others or maybe removed the tag? Akhran (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, Akhran. I have removed the tag from that page. Thanks again, for all your hard work. Rockpocket 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Hi RP could you have a look at my talk page an editor with a COI is asking for help, It appears they are trying to upload an image maybe words from an admin will be of benefit thanks. BigDunc^Talk 21:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dunc. I had a look, but seemed to have missed the action and the editor has given up. Probably just as well, as his motive for editing as clearly counter to our policies. Assisting him further would probably end up being counterproductive. Still, I'll keep an eye on his contribs in case he decides to have another go. Rockpocket 23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He is back and has added an image to the article here I am not sure what the copyright status is so could you check it out, I hate that copyright stuff very confusing thanks. BigDunc^Talk 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Office Robbery Statistics

Regarding the above redirect. I would have appreciated it if you had given me a notification that the page was up for deletion so I could contest it, or put it to RfD so that it could be properly discussed before a decision was reached. The article that it redirects to is an episode of The Office in which a character comments that there is no Wikipedia article on Office Robbery Statistics. Since that episode aired, the article has been created by several people in an attempt to either create substantial content for a legitimate article, or simply to create a nonsense article. With the DVD release of this episode occurring on September 8, 2009 it is not unimaginable that this query will be searched and possibly recreated. My thinking behind this was that by creating a legitimate redirect to the episode in which it was mentioned, people would be less likely to vandalize an existing redirect. Furthermore, I don't know of anything else that a user would be searching for by typing that query into Wikipedia. Though I'm hesitant to use it as an example cultural references have been used in the past to redirect to the subject from which they originated. I believe by keeping the redirect, we will be able to cut off potential vandals early on. At the very least I feel it should go to RfD. Thanks. HarlandQPitt (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I should have at the very least explained my deletion. My apologies.

The reason I deleted it is because it - and variant titles - have been deleted multiple times by multiple admins in the past. The article it redirects to has no obvious relevance to the title of the redirect. Crucially, it doesn't even mention the term in the episode article never mind explain it (unlike the Nappy headed hos comparison). Therefore is entirely incomprehensible to someone not already familiar with the joke. Moreover it is an in joke, a pop-culture meta-reference to Wikipedia, not all germane to the plot, title or production of that episode and thus I don't see it falling in the remit of WP:REDIRECT.

Nonetheless, I'm happy to undelete and list at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if you would prefer, as process is important. Let me know. Rockpocket 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it, if only for the fact that it will create a community consensus on the redirect. My main goal here is to curb vandalism, and if there is a closed RfD declining creation of the page, then it would be easier to eliminate further creation of the page by citing community consensus. Incidentally, if the redirect does exist, perhaps it could be improved upon if the article being redirected to should have a section explaining the reference? HarlandQPitt (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Its at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Office Robbery Statistics. Rockpocket 06:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Blanche Parry and Lady Troy

Hi Rp: Could you take a look at this talk page for Blanch Parry and let me know if what I am saying is correct? Should we be moving on with this? I don't think there is any hurry. She has been dead for quite some time, as has Lady Troy Thanks // BL \\ (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I am very glad I asked. Experience counts for a lot. // BL \\ (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rockpocket - please could you re-title Lady Troy. The page as been altered to Blanche Herbert and this is wrong. You can use Blanche Herbert, Lady Troy if you wish but she was never known as just Blanche Herbert. That is why I used the title Lady Troy. Thank you for your help as I have no idea how to do this.REHopkins (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for reinstating Lady Troy. Yrs., REHopkins (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

RoI naming poll

Thank you, I think User:Tfz/Poll is out, won't work too good, one headache is enough. It's a pity that there is no place to lodge objections to the poll without upping the ante, and the aggro. Sadly the intelligence of the community could not have been tapped so as to reach an amicable outcome. I'll take on board some of your suggestions, but I'm pretty much out of it from now on. Will probably cast a vote, but that's about all. Tfz 18:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste page move

Hi Rockpocket,

I did a stupid thing. I did a cut-and-paste page move for:

• County of Fingal → Fingal
• County of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown → Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown
• County of South Dublin → South Dublin
• County of South Tipperary → South Tipperary
• County of North Tipperary → North Tipperary

(There was consensus for these at Wikiproject Ireland.)

I'm sorry. This was *stupid* of me. I just wasn't thinking. Could you fix it per instructions on Wikipedia:CUT.

Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Rockpocket 18:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For a doing the tiresome — and otherwise thankless — job of fixing my stoooopid copy-and-paste move. Thanks, Rockpocket! You've shown us why you have the mop. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You've gotta Help me. A Demoted Administrator at https://www.csi.wikia.org blocked me because I put a template called Template:FormerAdmin (Former Administrator) on his page. I'M HIS BOSS NOW. Go to the site. http://csi.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Darth_Kieduss_the_Wise. It says "Adopted by Darth Kieduss the Wise. THAT'S me! Do something about https://www.csi.wikia.org/User:GroceryBag Lucas Duke (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

EL

Hi RP, I'm not seeing what's wrong with this as a source or external link in the ALF article; and as an external link in articles they're connected to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it as part of a spamming spree. I don't really have an issue using as an in line source for the ALF article, but I don't see how it is suitable as a stand alone EL in all those articles. Who is this Miller guy and why is his opinion, expressed on behalf of the ALF, something we should be highlighting, moreover the New Generation Society is hardly a notable or reliable source. I would have though an external link to Keith Mann's opinion, for example, would be much more relevant. Rockpocket 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is twofold: (a) the ALF is a knowledgeable source on the arguments against animal testing from the AR perspective; indeed, it is one of the most knowledgeable; and (b) the articles from Pro-Test/Aziz and ALF were published as a sort of debate between them by that magazine, which is interesting in itself, and it would be non-NPOV to allow one to be used and not the other. They are mentioned in the Tipu Aziz article, for example, quite legitimately, so there's no reason (as I see it) that they can't be mentioned elsewhere too. Whether we would use either of them as a sole source for anything contentious is another matter (partly because we don't know much about "New Generation Society" -- it probably has no editing policy, so the material from Pro-Test and ALF would likely both count as self-published), but as external links, or as sources about themselves -- e.g. "the ALF sees the anti-testing position as X" -- I'm not sure I see a problem with that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats fair enough for Pro-Test, Aziz and the ALF, but the editor had added it as an external link to lots of articles, such as Scientific Procedures Act, Animal Aid and Mel Broughton etc. I can't see any justification in WP:EL for these. Rockpocket 19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the spamming was inappropriate. Mel Broughton, I would probably have left, mind you, but fair enough. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Mills & Boon

I nearly choked on my coffee. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 07:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I do my best. I was feeling rather mischievous again today, I do hope they don't take offense. Domer could make a killing in romantic fiction, there is money to be made there. Rockpocket 03:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack Nicholson in As Good as It Gets? -- Evertype·✆ 06:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment. Rockpocket 07:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

And when are you leaving again? // BL \\ (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Next visit in 5 weeks. At that point contracts should be signed and a date for moving, probably early next year, finalized. Rockpocket 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandal identified

User:Sir Clancelot Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the editor in question, if he continues I will block. Rockpocket 01:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandal/Sickpuppet identified

from my talkpage:

Hi can you do me a favour and undo the move made here which is against the Arbcom ruling?83.43.216.214 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean the page title move. ie Ireland was changed to ROI in the title.83.43.216.214 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't be undone without admin intervention alas. I left a message on the mover's talk. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The page mover is a sock puppet of user:Dylanmckane, so I don't think there'll be any cooperation there. Can you contact a trusted admin to out on the arbcom ruling? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.120.4 (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do if you link me the relevant Arbcom ruling. I'm not familiar with it (or I think I'm not! :) Sarah777 (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Here you go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.120.4 (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Domer was blocked twice for breaching this ruling. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the page, but I'm not sure that fixing this was really correct. Taking to IECOLL.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

John Kenny

Please see the attacks on me by this user on the Ireland poll page. I do not want him blocked, yet. But a serious warning might be in order. (Obviously hell would freeze over before Doc Kiernan was moved to deal with this guy). Sarah777 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exact same goes for User:Djegan. When I get blocked for less I don't see why I should put up with this crap. Sarah777 (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah your blasting this out of all proportion - notwithstanding that JK has provided links to support himself. Djegan (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw your remark please, before somebody has to do it for you. I thought my block was "out of all proportion" but I didn't see you rushing to my defence. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rock, I really need to know why no action is being taken to warn these editors. Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, calm down. Sarah - I certainly did not support the block inflicted in you and made that perfectly clear [8][9] I fully intended to push the issue but unfortunately RL events overtook me and by the time I was able to revisit it, your block was essentially up. I don't see any sort of egregious attacks by either of these editors that are any worse the the general tone of that page (though there is a lot of text on that page and I may have missed something, feel free to direct me to what you consider problematic). If there are warnings to be made, it should be to a good number of editors, yourself included. Singling out individuals is not a good idea (as was the near unanimous consensus when you were blocked). I am not really the ideal person to start issuing warnings anyway, since I have been quite heavily involved in the discussion myself. However I am happy to have an entirely uninvolved admin come and and deal with all the incivility on that page, equally and fairly. If is that is what you want then I'll ask a few admins that I trust to consider it.

I understand you are feeling victimized here, and that is entirely justified. I find DrKiernan's actions, and his subsequent responses, unsatisfying and am happy to continue to discuss it with him. If he remains convinced of the merits of his actions in spite of the widely held concerns being expressed, and you would like to take it further, I'll help you do that. That is the best way to move forward here. Rockpocket 03:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm calmer now but I still am concerned that several editor's seem to feel that personal attacks on me are risk free. Already Kenny has threatened to block for removing his attacks from the talkpage. I think DrKiernan was correct to resign; but by doing so ironically (in my view) he showed very sound judgment which indicates the block was an unfortunate lapse and that he is indeed the sort of Admin we need. I hope he returns soon. I understand you are feeling victimized here, and that is entirely justified. OK - so if I repeat what I said about J Kenny's contribution then I need fear no block, despite the fact the Chillum said it was a legitimate block (bar the involved Admin angle)? I'm either entitled to defend myself in the exact same manner I'm attacked or I must be allowed to prevent/remove the attacks on me. That must be obvious? Otherwise my view of the process as a sham is proven. You cannot have the referee and linesman playing for one team and call it a match. Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way; I'm prepared to play by strictly enforced rules; I'm happy with no rules at all (re civility). What I will not accept is different rules for myself and Kenny et al. Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kenney again

Rock, this editor seems intent on restoring an array of redlinks to the Earl of Mayo article. Could you explain to him the hazards of edit warring? Maybe even explain the rules to him and suggest he look up the mos? Sarah777 (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, this is a content dispute that would best be resolved by discussion with reference to WP:RED. I'm not a big fan of lists of red links, but that is more of a personal preference that any community consensus. Apparently red links help the project grow; apparently. Rockpocket 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Note

Note that the account mentioned in my second message to you was in fact recently created, just hours after the likely sockmaster was given two warnings regarding their behaviour and disruption. Nja²⁴⁷ 12:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the "likely sockmaster" has been totally cleared by checkuser, for about the sixth time. Note also the block on the "likely sockmaster" was overturned and the action by this Admin condemned. Further note that I have called on this Admin to resign. Sarah777 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I missed all the drama (I was traveling last week with only very intermittent internet access). Regretfully, I think that had I been able to respond with haste, I may have been able to prevent some of the consequences.

Nja247 had contacted me by email to inquire about Throwaway85 and the possibility of it being a sockpuppet of Domer's. Now while I know, and Sarah knows, that sockpuppetry is not Domer's style, one can't really expect someone less familiar with him to know that. Unfortunately, I was unable to impart that opinion in time to prevent the request being filed.

That said, It appears things began to spiral out of control as a result of the outrage expressed in response to the request for checkuser. I don't really understand that. There have been plenty of people around the subject of Irish Republicanism (on both side of the POV-fence) who have used sockpuppets abusively. Inevitably that propensity for abuse will cast a shadow over editors who share similar POVs. That is unfortunate and frustrating for them, certainly, but if one has not been sock puppeteering, then one can be checkusered until the comes come home without having anything to worry about. Moreover, the clerks and checkusers themselves should ensure that frivolous requests are not enacted. Sometimes requests without sufficient merit slips through the cracks, but again, if one has nothing to hide, this shouldn't be a major concern.

Nonetheless, I'm glad that the excessive block was quickly lifted. But, from the outside looking in, one can't help wondering home many times this pattern is going to play out before the editors, and admins, involved, both learn that this sort of brinkmanship doesn't serve anyone? Rockpocket 00:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Robina Qureshi

Rockpocket, re robina qureshi, she is no longer with peter mullan. Re the anver khan newspiece is an allegation not fact. It is unfair to include an unfounded accusation and place it on the wiki page and define that person. that is why i thought fit to rmeove it as it affects that vperson bewyond the realms of wiki. i would have emailed you but dont know how. Tiger3456 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your explanation. I have removed the reference to Mullan on her infobox. The paragraph about her involvement in the Sheridan case is neutrally phrased. It only states she was accused, and it mentions that she refutes the allegations. However, the sources provided don't appear to support the claim, so I have removed it per WP:BLP for the meantime. If reliable sources are provided, however, the content may be replaced. I don't really anticipate that happening, though. Rockpocket 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rockpocket, you have been very understanding about this. Tiger3456 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rockpocket, can you tell me how you address the issue when someone posts malicious or hurtful things about a living person on wiki? I can explain in detail on an email Tiger3456 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Our policy about biographies of living people is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In short, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Therefore malicious content can and should be removed on sight, and WP:BLP used as a justification. Discussion can take place afterwards.

That said, things that could be considered hurtful may still be appropriate in articles, so long as it is relevant, notable, reliably sourced and neutrally phrased. Hurtful things happen and sometimes we document that. So in the case of Qureshi, for example. The allegations made against her may be considered hurtful, but they were documented in a neutral manner, and they appeared to be reliably sourced (though it turns out that was not the case) by third parties, which makes them notable. How relevant they are to her biography is questionable, of course, and that usually comes down to a matter of opinion.

Is there a particular article or issue that you are concerned over? If so, I'll be happy to look into it for you. You can email me at my address: Rockpocket at gmail.com if you would prefer to communicate privately. Rockpocket 21:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that if there is a non-contentious fact about someone that does not have a source but could still be correct, it is often preferable to add a {{citation needed}} template to the end of the sentence or else search to see if you can verify the fact yourself. This alerts other editors and readers to the fact it is not verified, but does not remove potentially accurate information. Rockpocket 21:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket did you get the mail i sent. there seems to be more vandalism by an anon ip user can u block them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger3456 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I replied earlier today. Because the person is editing from a non-static IP, blocking will not be effective. However I have semi-protected that article for a while, which should hopefully deal with the problem. Rockpocket 23:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for a neutral opinion

Hi Rock. Would you mind taking a look here? It should be self-explanatory but if you need any clarification give me a shout. --John (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)