User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 13

Yung G
Could you look at this article Yung G? It is new, but seems to have leapt fully formed, as it were. It reads like a hoax, given that the artist is supposedly 14. Perhaps rappers are this young, with this much experience, but I doubt it. I can't seem to work out how to put the "speedy delete" text onto a page. Bielle 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have spent too many years reading university papers not to have developed an instinct for something that just doesn't quite fit. The hard part is finding out exactly what it is that doesn't fit. Thanks for doing all the work on this one.Bielle 02:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you consider protecting Yung G against recreation? The user has created this article four times in two days, and it's been speedied every time. --Rrburke(talk) 03:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Protecting empty pages is something we try to avoid when possible. I have warned the editor against recreation at risk of a block. If he reposts the article, I will block him. If he persists using sockpuppet accounts then we may have no choice but to protect, but my feeling is that he will get the message this time. I'll keep an eye on things, though, and feel free to bring it to my attention if you become aware of any more of his antics. Rockpock  e  t  06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Profane User Page
I had put a "Speedy Delete" on RadiusIM, and then went to the creator's page to advise him/her. I know that Wiki is pretty lenient about User Pages, but this User:AgentA was a bit over-the-top, I think. Your call ... I didn't post anything. Bielle 04:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Signing "Speedy Deletes"
First, thanks for the encouragement. You noted that I did not need to sign when I mark these articles. Does that mean that I am identified automatically, or that I am supposed to be anonymous? Bielle 06:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Barbatio
Rockpocket, your infant has grown to adulthood! I am still uncertain of stylistic points, so please make any changes you consider necessary. Regards Clio the Muse 19:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Simultaneous pinning (double double)
Half a star for reviving WP:RDAC (I still think it's a great idea!) and creating Barbatio. The other half for caring in general and helping make the reference desk a valuable asset to the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk  19:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhoh
Do you think I went overboard here? daniel folsom  22:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. A little righteous indignation never hurt anyone. I'm assuming you weren't vote-stacking, therefore it is certainly acceptable to defend yourself. I wouldn't get too worked up over it though, the whole debate seems to be an energy sink that generated more heat than light. Honestly, quite why people think the different spelling of words are so important to necessitate a move I'll never understand. Rockpock  e  t  23:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Phew - thanks for the heads up. I may have alerted more Yoghurts than Yogurts - but it shouldn't be a huge difference - and keep in mind that I went through the debates - where yoghurt came out on top each time. daniel  folsom  23:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Patience?
I'm unsure why you are tolerating the way-over-the-top crap that AgentA is doing? Is there a history there or are you seeking canonization? This guy needs to be shown the door, IMO.-- killing sparrows  (chirp!) 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel as though I have to apologize for introducing you to the seriously aggressive AgentA. I guess that's why you get paid the big bucks! Bielle 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, yeah. My Christmas bonus should be correlated with the number of abusive comments I get! I don't know him from Adam, but its no big deal that he responded so aggressively to my "request". Things like this are not worth me losing my temper over since it pretty much comes with the territory. I have a lot more to lose than he does if I allow myself to get goaded into abusing my sysop tools, so I rarely block anyone for attacks directed at me personally. However, he is on my radar and if he starts to use that sort of language against other people, or continues to recreate deleted material he will take an enforced holiday. Rockpock  e  t  17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like another admin saw his comments aimed an me and others and decided to take action. Problem solved. Rockpock  e  t  17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as a heads up - I saw that another user had reverted edits again made by this guy - so I made a comment on his talk page trying to convince him to stop. I tried to do this as politely as possible, and because this I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't taking his side or anything of the sort. daniel folsom  20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Offer
On May 8, you offered to talk to Localzuk to help broker new relations/restart relations between himself and I. If you are still willing to do that, I would like to take you up on your offer. SanchiTachi 04:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to help with Localzuk. I am willing to go out of my way to repair relations between him and myself, because he demonstrated that it was solely a philosophy issue that would (hopefully) improve the group. Trimmed this down to cut down on any excess/unwarranted responses. :) SanchiTachi 06:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Talk:Joyce Gemayel
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Joyce Gemayel, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Joyce Gemayel is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Joyce Gemayel, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Talk:Joyce Gemayel itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi
You may be interested in participating in the WP:AN/I involving SanchiTachi. There is a shortage of Admin participation at this point. Finell (Talk) 05:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

LC
You're right. Looking for the diff of the question being posted, which was at that time the first under "May 25", I assumed the first actual posting of the day to have been it, without looking more carefully. This posting had however been removed in the meantime by Steve Summit. --Lambiam Talk 08:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks Rockpocket. You may want to pop over to Factory Farming if you think things have been quiet on the AR front... There's been a tiny bit of a dispute there recently and you could probably provide your own insight into things.-Localzuk(talk) 20:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Joyce Jemayel
Hello, thx, I am working on my editing skills, which explains the mess i did. If you can, list the article Joyce Jemayel under the Notability section as question for me. Thx. Afif Abdul Wahab

My Editor Review
Thanks for your comments, appreciated. Would you recommend another change of username (especially so soon after the last one), or just toning down my signature? WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, to be honest. Perhaps the acronym will not be that obvious to anyone that would use it against you, since those that cause problems on football related article tend not to be blessed in the brains department. So perhaps toning down your signature would be enough. To be honest, its unlikely anyone would oppose an RfA based on it - I certainly wouldn't - it was more advice to make your life easier. So you could just wait and see if you feel is is a problem and then act, rather than doing anything pre-emptively. Rockpock  e  t  00:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice March
Hi, Rockpocket. When you have time could you please have a look at the above page. It deals with an incident in the Russain Civil War, and was created in response to a request on the Humanities Desk. I would be grateful if you could iron out any editorial idiosyncrasies (There must be loads!) Regards Clio the Muse 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course; I was not sure how these should be inserted. The Denikin quote is originally from his Ocherki russkoi smuti (2:224), but can be found in translation in Mawdsley's book at page 21.  And the quote from Lenin is in the same book at page 22.  Thanks for taking the time to look this over, Rockpocket.  Clio the Muse 04:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is from my talk page. Just in case you missed it!  Clio the Muse 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

About.com
Hey Rockpocket, if you don't mind I have a quick question about a source's legitemacy. Do wikipedia articles use about.com? daniel folsom  03:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick browse suggests some articles do appear to use it as a source, but usually for quite trivial things. The content is supposed to be generated by experts (see about.com), but I wouldn't be too happy relying on it for something controversial without supporting sources. Rockpock  e  t  03:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, okay, would you mind checking this out then - a guy took out a paragraph, and then I put it back since after reading about about.com I also saw it was supposed to be experts. Then he removed it again and said it was an editorial site, which seemed wrong to me, and after saying something on his talk page he said he would defer to my judgement... but here it is (by the way if you don't have time don't worry about it, I could just leave it out to be safe)  daniel  folsom  03:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems alright to me. My only advice would be to directly attribute the supposition "Such military training could ultimately result in...". The about.com guide is Rod Powers who is a published author on military matters. I'd attribute it to him. Rockpock  e  t
 * O thank you soo much - I hope you mean like what it is now ... but either way thanks for your time. daniel  folsom  03:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How to Identify an Admin
Is there any way to tell which editors are also sysop/admins? Is there something on their user pages? If you ask if someone is an admin, is there any requirement (policy or community standard) that he/she tell you the truth? Bielle 05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. No, nothing has happened that involved me. I was reading about some dispute where one editor seemed, in an almost knee-jerk reaction, to threaten something like "I will block you the next time you do that" and also "I will have you blocked . . ." over almost every edit change. It just struck me that (a) there is a material difference between the two types of threat statements and (b) that neither semed, in the specific context, very professional; they were more like "I'm going to tell my big brother and he will beat you up" than anything else. I then wondered how one could check to see if the editor was out of line or if it was a sysop going too far. (It turned out that no sysop/admin was involved. It was an editor who was later chastised by an admin and then him/herself blocked.) You have answered my question in your usual thorough fashion, and there is no current situation in which I need call on your assistance. Thanks again. Bielle 18:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Vacation
Well, as you may have seen, I’m on vacation in real life. Have a great summer Rockpocket! And hold down the fort until I get back. Okay? ;-) S.dedalus 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

re Frank Farina
Urk, I can't believe I did that... thanks for catching it. Herostratus 08:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

praise indeed
Glad i made you laugh, praise indeed from your kind self, bring back any memories from high school games perchance? LOL Perry-mankster 09:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User page
It works for me, but, Rockpocket, there are a hell of a lot of 'dumb motherfuckers' out there! In your position I would not care to show my hand quite so clearly; but, well, I would never be in your position, because it requires gentle handling of some of the dumbest. Thus far and no further goes Dame Clio! On the other matter, as I noted on my talk page, it never would have happened but for your lead. Clio the Muse 09:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted, thank you. That phrase simply struck a chord with me somewhat and I wanted to use it. Mind you, the very fact I would find that amusing smacks of elitism, so perhaps the joke is on me. I'll probably change my mind soon enough when I have some time to reflect on how it is unfair on the source of the "elitist" jibe. But i'm not quite there yet ;) Rockpock  e  t  10:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Barbatio
Thank you for telling me the good news about Barbatio. I am so pleased by the work that you and Clio put into this. My regards General joffe 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Monobooks
Hey, so I've been trying to delete as many pages as possible from my userspace, and I've been fairly successful, but I was wondering if, since I don't really use them, should I delete the monobook.js and monobook.css pages? Thanks, daniel  folsom  15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Phone Charges to Gov't Offices
You just wrote on the Ref Desk that the UK gov't charges questionners 1 pound 20 a minute for information on a Visa help line. I am stunned. That's over $100 an hour, and ours are the cheap dollars. First, I think that is more expensive than phone sex, with likely less satisfaction. Second, if the UK gov't offices are anything like the Canadian ones, you can wait five minutes while a clerk checks his name tag to see who he is today. I think they put you on hold while they go out for lunch sometimes. Does anyone actually phone them? That's one way of keeping staffing requirements down. End of rantBielle

You are right. The fact that it is the US Embassy doing the charging is worse, and perhaps even more inept. I apologise for even considering that it was a project of Blair and Co. I had no idea that you were/are such a subversive character, though. Be careful what you say here - and that is only partly a joke. Bielle 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your nice message
Thank you, sir, for your very kind welcome message. I really only came to the reference desk as a 'bird of passage', to seek help with some work I am doing on German University life in the inter-war period. I was not sure what to expect, but I have been so delighted with the answers that Miss Clio has given to my questions that I will continue to dip in from time to time. You all do such good work. E. G. A.. Husserl 08:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Migospia
I reverted and left a comment on his talk page. I see he's been blocked for 3RR already. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Eschatology, religious movement
I would contend that this whole article is an "opinion"! The "Facts" that are stated are incorrect and biased, and being an Eschatologist, I take offense at the angle and direction this item presents. Rev. Ronald G. Cosseboom

AGF
Sorry, but that case goes beyond AGF, and into pure stupidity. Not to mention AGF is for contributions, not asking for something which is most likely academic dishonesty. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Something Cool
Hey - have you seen any of these (see list below) - I'm not good enough with temps to know how he did those - but that's pretty incredible considering that they're user made. daniel folsom  21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * user:adam1213/warnv
 * user:adam1213/warnspam
 * User:Adam1213/warnblannking
 * User:Adam1213/warn3rr

Time
Hey, if you have time could you check out/critique/fix some of the edits I made to an article recently. It seems to be the consensus that the superbowl halftime show controversy article needs a bunch of cleanup, but I don't have an incredible way with words, and I'm slightly panicing that I have absolutely destroyed the article. Again, if you have time I'd really appreciate it (here's the link to the changes I did: ) daniel  folsom  22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your comments
Yes you reported me when all you had to do was come to me and explain your issue and what might happen. No I have clearly not decided that, according to Wiki: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Remove the abuse template to me was clear vandalism when animal testing is abuse, it is like under KKK or hate group for there not to be a racism template if there was, again please stop accusing me things, I do not appreciate and it does not WP:AGF. And I suggest you learn from this experience and next time talk to me or whoever you decide to report--Migospia☆ 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to WP:NPOV animal experimentation should not be described as "abuse". It may be abuse in your opinion but your opinion is not notable, and therefore you do not get to decide that something gets labelled as "abuse". Animal experimentation is perfectly legal. The legal use of an animal cannot be objectively described as abuse. We can certainly say some people consider it to be abuse, but we simply can't slap on a huge "abuse" template at the top of the article. Therefore the removal of that template was infact an act to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, by keeping it WP:NPOV. The fact that 4 different editors - two of whom are experienced admins - reverted your edits is very strong evidence that the removal is not vandalism. What makes you think you are right and 4 other experienced Wikipedians are wrong?
 * Yes, in retrospect I should have explained the issue to you prior to the block. I apologise for that. But I am explaining the issue to you now and you are still calling it vandalism completely refusing to appreciate the reasoning behind it. If you want to discuss it, lets discuss it. But you can't argue it is vandalism AND that you would have stopped reverting had it been explained to you, since vandalism is except from 3RR.
 * Finally, with regards to you email, I don't believe that is a valid detailed fair use rationale. The links I provided show what such a rationale should look like and yours looks nothing like it. You have to say why you think it is fair use, not simply state what it is. I am not going to delete that image, however. Another admin will review the template in a few days and either accept it or reject it. I'm not even going to bother to respond to your suggestion that there was racist motives in adding such a template to the image, simply because it features a black woman. Such a suggestion is absurdly paranoid and extremely offensive. I find it comical you quote WP:AGF when you are accusing other editors in good standing of being racist and a vandal. However, since I didn't add the template in the first place, (Betacommand did) your allegations are with respect to him, not me. Lets hope he doesn't get wind of them, or you might find yourself blocked again for gross violations of WP:NPA. Rockpock  e  t  21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop calling my edits vandalism when they cleary are not, for someone who is a member of wiki animal rights project you have a twisted defination of abuse, look up abuse, if it is not rascist what other reason you have for wanting to delete the image? Are you threanting me with your admin power and wanting to block me again, sick!--Migospia☆ 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Are you reading the same thing I am? Please tell me where I called your edits "vandalism"? Rockpock  e  t  21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Danielfolsom
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I decided to get involved in the above debate, hope you don't mind but it seemed like it was getting a bit heated, and this is my final response on the user's talk page (please note that I'm just trying to have him relax and walk away from debating you) -- daniel  folsom  21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I actually have to go for about half an hour to an hour, but in closing - your a good editor, and so is Rockpocket. You did make a mistake with the 3RR thing, and maybe he made a mistake by not warning you first - but regardless, his supposid mistake isn't a violation of WP policy. You were blocked for 24 hours. But, now you're back, and you're a good enough editor that if you truly believe that animal expierementation should be on the torture template - then you cango to the animals exp. talk page and bring it up, and you're a good enough editor that you can probably make some really good points, and you're a good enough editor that no matter what the final result is - you'll be able to go on and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways. If you have any questions at all feel free to leave it on my talk page, although again, I'll be gone for a bit. -- daniel  folsom  21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I have no clue what happened. The user said that they would go about adding animal expiermentation in a civil manor (see my talk) after I posted the above, but then they go about blanking potential negative side effects of veganism and doing a bunch of other crazy stuff. I'm just completely baffled right now, I feel like I've been blindsighted.-- daniel  folsom  22:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, I hate to ask you to do this - but could you tell me if I did anything wrong while talking to that user - I seriously can't stop thinking about it because I thought (for once) I had remained civil and said essentially the generic pick-me up response, uhhh it's just so crazy. daniel  folsom  00:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, your attempt at talking with her or him was laudable and perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately reason appears to be something they are lacking, for example he or she accused me of being racist because I reverted their incorrect removal of a fair-use rationale template. Why? Because the image was of a black person. Crazy, huh? Anyway, don't worry about it. Four or five editors have individually tried to offer advice and her or she simply accuses them of being involved in spreading "hate". At this rate he or she will be blocked before too long. By the way, I'll get back to you on your other comments later tonight, I haven't forgotten! Rockpock  e  t  00:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * O wow, thanks! Actually frankly you can probably ignore at least the monobook and something cool sections. I actually found myself reading them and I realized I was bothering you to no end - really sorry about that - my head must've been in the cloud when I wrote that one about templates ... uhhh. Seriously, if I ever do something like that again, feel free to block me because I really really don't want to waste your like that, and it was unfair of me to post those two - especially after I bothered you about about.com, because I've been making so much extra work for you. So I'll try to slow down a bit now, you've erally been great as an adopter and I don't want to ruin the whole thing there because of petty questions, so from now on unless you contact me you'll be my 911 - only contact in case of emergencies.  daniel  folsom  00:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, honestly, don't worry about it - i'm happy to help. I've just been a bit caught up in other issues recently, but I'll get round to it later. The something cool section is very cool, and I'm glad your directed me to it. Its probably built using the same sort of coding as VandalProof. Rockpock  e  t  00:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I realy do appreciate that. Just fyi: I'm afraid I need to step back from that user, while I think I've been ok at restraining myself for the most part - I can feel myself getting frustrated more and more, and I don't want to start attacking him. I'm really sorry to abandon you like this - and if I see he's vandalized this page I'll gladly revert - but I'm just stressing out over it. Time to gorge out on ice cream (jk - maybe)-- daniel  folsom  01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats a good idea, its not going to help her or you if she feels you are attacking her too. Sometimes it just really difficult. Well meaning editor after well meaning editor comes along and tries to help by pointing them in the right direction, but one by one they simply get accused of being part of a cabal in return. I do hope she can learn to see beyond her opinion and embrace NPOV, but i'm not confident. Some people just don't get Wikipedia, I've seen it time and again, and they end up blocked or they leave convinced they are the victim of a conspiracy. Anyway, I too am going to take a step back now, since its clearly not constructive for her. Enough people have been made aware of the situation that she will not be able to push her POV without being spotted now, so its time for us all to move on. Rockpock  e  t  01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Topic Break
By the way, I just realized the link i gave you for the superbowl thing was actually one edit off (only a minor one, but just in case you haven't seen it yet): here's the update (What i did to the article)
 * (Original message):

"Hey, if you have time could you check out/critique/fix some of the edits I made to an article recently. It seems to be the consensus that the superbowl halftime show controversy article needs a bunch of cleanup, but I don't have an incredible way with words, and I'm slightly panicing that I have absolutely destroyed the article. Again, if you have time I'd really appreciate it (here's the link to the changes I did: ) daniel folsom  22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

Abuse Temp
I think you misunderstood. I was warning Migo about adding controversial/POV cats without discussion... did I revert and accidentally put it back in? David Fuchs( talk /  frog blast the vent core!  ) 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

More Ice
Greetings, sweet sir. Did you know that the Ice March appears on Did You Know for 1 June? You do now! Thanks for you editing help. Clio the Muse 02:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that myself and added it as another achievement of WP:RDAC. Good work, milady! Rockpock  e  t  02:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Veganism response
I think there is a mistake about this I was just trying to say how B12 deficiency is different than the other *deficiencies* in veganism, because the others it is not hard to find in vegan foods, whereas B12 is not and I think that should be stated.--Migospia☆ 01:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User Loomis
Rockpocket, please have look at the latest posting by User Loomis on my talk page. I intend to remove this in the near future, but not before you have had a chance to read it. Thanks. Clio the Muse 01:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Rockpocket. I'm concerned that Lewis has very much failed to live up to the terms under which he was permitted to resume editing Wikipedia.  In this edit (no doubt the one to which Clio refers above) Lewis as much as states that he intends to stalk Clio's contributions because she "pathetically" "cannot bear to be wrong".


 * I can kick this over to AN/I if you prefer, but frankly I suspect that it's not worth wasting our time. I urge you to revoke the parole that you (generously) granted. Loomis51 just isn't contributing to the project anymore. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very unpleasant seeing a serious editor (who helps raise and keep the standards at the reference desk) being harassed. This is negative, personal, obsessive, unspecific, and adds nothing constructive to the encyclopedia. It should stop. ---Sluzzelin talk  05:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for letting me know, I have been busy today, so missed this latest comment. I completely agree that it is unacceptable and nothing more than a complete return to type that earned the block in the first place. If I may beg your indulgence, ToaT, I have chose to issue a final, absolute and non-negotiable warning instead of immediately reblocking. If you disagree with this and do wish to reblock yourself immediately, then I will not protest as I have made it clear to him that I am simply acting on my own direction and have no mandate to ask other admins to follow my lead. However I personally feel this is the right thing to do by him. If, as I frankly expect, this these terms are not adhered to then I will reblock him again without further comment, and I would encourage anyone else to do likewise. Rockpock  e  t  08:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The objective here (primarily) is to stop the harrassment of Clio; if a stern final warning accomplishes that, then so be it.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please
<<One other thing, in the last few days you have now accused a number of different editors of having racial motivations simply because they disagree with you over an article or image. No-one has mentioned race but you. No-one. There is no justification whatsoever for this per WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I'm going to say this just once: If you make anymore unfounded allegations of racism on Wikipedia then It will very likely be noted at WP:AN/I and, I would suggest, there is a decent chance you will end up blocked. You may have to deal with racial discrimination in your everyday life, but just because someone on Wikipedia disagrees with you, does not mean your race, or anyone else's, is a factor. Please take this warning not as a threat, but as advice to ensure you are not censured. Rockpocket 06:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)>>

Pleases read- There is a lot of hate, anger and confusion so please remember to be polite,  assume good faith, be welcoming,  not to personally attack,   show etiquette, and  don't be a dick (I have only seen two editors be this)

When you come to my page, and if you plan to accuse me of anything like you have done numerous times these past days, which I am beginning to think it is harassment. Do not turn racism around and make it seem like the victim (or person being attacked) is the attacker, because seriously that is really the worst thing you can do it is not very nice. I am trying to be calm about this but you keep bringing it up. Look at facts before you accuse. Rockpocket: You have now accused a number of different editors of having racial motivations simply because they disagree with you over an article or image
 * Never have done such a thing

Rockpocket: No-one has mentioned race but you. No-one
 * Again not true, a user realdeal something has mentioned race to me about a month ago, and now he has came back not mentioning race but attack and stalk-tracking me

Rockpocket: there is a decent chance you will end up blocked.
 * AGAIN threaten me? Wow!

Some statements/facts: I have mentioned race on Wikipedia, I am letting people know the way they are treating it as a racism, not that they are but the way they are treating me and the subject matter, you have to fight for rights, and on Wikipedia I do not think people should get away with any such hate on unknowingly hate and I do not know why oh WHY you and some other Wikipedia editors think this is okay, I am not saying that by doing so Wikiepda is racist so please do not twist my words out of context. For confusing example look at Tangeline it is being nominated for deletion under no given reason; the article itself was inspiration to articles of it's kind, soap opera couples. Why delete the only black-white soap opera couple and leave the other 26+ on here? I just want a simple answer, people may have rasict actions and make racist comments unknowingly and people should open their eyes. I am not calling them racist! But their actions are very hurtful--Migospia †♥ 07:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You say you "Never have done such a thing". Really? A few examples of your suggestions that others are editing with racial motivations:


 * 1) "... it seems you are just going for the small time black artist." In an email to me 2 days ago.
 * 2) "...if this is not rascit then either add that image thing to all cd/album covers here on Wikipedia or delete them"
 * 3) "...I am starting to know why people hate Wikipedia it is because of admins like you and you were cleary awae of the race"
 * 4) "...how can you vote to delete this and not be racist"
 * 5) "...I am just saying a couple of people voting already hate me and oe is racist"
 * 6) "...I suggest we find some non rascist and people who don't hate me in here"
 * Rockpock e  t  07:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That just proves MY point....--Migospia †♥ 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'm done discussing this with you, I have referred this to AN/I. Lets see what the consensus is from other, independent editors. Rockpock  e  t  08:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

All I said was please prove what you are accusing me of, it is not nice and I really do not know what you are trying to do, it honestly cannot be that hard if you said I did those things?--Migospia †♥ 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to sound patronizing here, but if you click on the blue words above you will come to a diff that is an electronic record of what you wrote. That is the proof that you said those things and, for example, saying "how can you vote to delete this and not be racist" is no different that saying "anyone who voted delete is a racist". Yet no-one of that page mentioned race as an issue. How on earth can you think that someone who votes in a AfD is racist if they don't mention race at all?  Rockpock  e  t  08:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow so things are getting turned around here huh? That is what the world has become today, well if that is the proof, that proves nothing, it just proves what I have stated. That is another thing they did not give a reason and like I said earlier -Why delete the only black-white soap opera couple and leave the other 26+ on here? - It is because it makes no sense, I am confused, and want to know why, no one is givin me an answer, and like I said about realdeal he has mentioned racist comments to me in the past I do not know how he got on the voting board.

Bottom line- It is a question NOT an accusation. Please stop trying to make me out as the bad guy when I am just trying to help Wikipedia--Migospia †♥ 09:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Response
''I can undelete it and move it to a subpage for you. Just let me know where and when you want it. Rockpocket 20:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)''

Thank you that would be fine.--Migospia †♥ 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC) It does not matter any more no reason to move Tangeline to subpage when and if deleted--Migospia †♥ 03:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I was confused by that as stated on my talk page, and  because User:Jossi had provided rational so it was deleted unjustly. I uploaded it again because I thought it was deleted out of vandalism, why was it deleted, I rather not go near someone that deletes things out of nowhere!--Migospia †♥ 03:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Afropunk

Danielfolsom's extreme Incivility
Hello, There's been several cases of incivility by user Daniel. I gave him several chances without reporting him and he continued. He was using curse words and telling me that what I had to say was crap. He's also wrote this below.

Daniel wrote on Migospia's discussion page: 'Hey, so I've read through the MTV source, and I think it's questionable enough that you should try to look for another - just to be on the safe side. Also, EverybodyHatesChris has gone bezerk, just to let you know ;D. But seriously, if he calls one of your edits vandalism again go ahead and report him, cause that's absolute crap. Also, if he threatens to report you - 10$ says he wouldn't even know where to go to report someone - so try and challenge him on that'

He is clearly trying to create more problems between Misgospia and my self? Stuff like this can't be tolerated on wikipedia, rockpuppet: You also say 10$ says he wouldn't even know where to report someone Thats complete incivility and disrespect, Rockpuppet. Hes being very incivil to me and he made a bet that I couldn't find an administrator like you to report anything to. Yes, I am frustrated. I have been saying a hundred times that what she is using is not a source and they're only finally understanding that after hundreds of times. Yes, I am happy that I have finally got through to at least him, but he can't say I'm right while being incivil. It's immature and rude.EverybodyHatesChris 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright fair enough - although just to let you know the intent of the 10$ comment was to get Migospia to not be intimidated by everybodyhateschris saying that everyone was a vandal and he would report people. I actually didn't expect Chris to see the comment, but I probably should've used better wording. Anyways, I found another source to back up the disputed claim (actually I found a source a while ago - I was hoping that one of the new users would do a google search themselves - sigh wishful thinking), so it should'nt be a problem any more. Thanks for the feedback though-- daniel  folsom  06:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rockpuppet, I saw the discussion you had with Daniel about his behavior on his user page and how he has said 'fair enough' like he was going to obey you. But yesterday, when he found a source for the Coral Smith article, this is one of the last things he remarks when he finds the source, on the Coral Smith discussion page, right after he's had his discussion with you: 'Wow. Apparently new editors have no idea what they're doing - a quick google search provides the other source I mentioned.'

This is not constructive at all, Rockpuppet. In fact, it's another attack. In fact, it sounds like an attack about new editors in general and I don't think any new editor would feel comfortable seeing a comment like that. I certainly don't. I don't even know why he would make that comment because it wasn't me who didn't have a source for my contention, but Misgospia. However, I am the only new editor in this issue. It a was baseless attack on me and all new editors, Rockpuppet, and I don't feel comfortable with talk that insults a group of people for no reason. This was after your discussion with him that he went and said this if you look at his edit history. This is a user who attacked me after you had a discussion with him and said he would obey. I know he's your friend, so I feel really bad about doing this, but I have to. EverybodyHatesChris 13:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

access to wiki
hi Rockpocket, you might not be able to help, but what the hey, if ye dinae ask ye no ken, eh! I could not access wiki on thurs/fri (31/05-01/06) kept getting a message about the server having probs, i know that it was not my works server as i could still access youtube, google etc, just not wiki (god i had to acutally work!) wondering was it just me or was there problems? ref desk seemed to be running fine (from the edits put there on those dates) must have just been me
 * Totally with you on the spoilt child thing, saw sweet 16 and have moved my 3 year old princess into the cellar, before she is totally ruined, alas i feel it's too little too late - her mother was spolit by her father and our daughter seems to be a clone of her mother - with the daydreaming tendancy of her father. sorry if this edit is rambling i must be under the influence :) Perry-mankster 10:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering my midnight ramble, and BIG thanks for my bearnstar and as for the further edits you received after mine, who would want to be an Admin eh? you do a great job as far as i am concerned (you gave lewis what he deserved) as for dealing, at our school (east fife area) it was homemade wine and hash which where the biggest sellers! ;) Perry-mankster 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Update
Hey, so just to let you know I responded to Chris' comments about my comments here ... (?) - but I'm not planning on just using your talk page as a communication point for us, because it's not fair to take up room on your talk page for that, but anyways, I think since the debate is over eventually I'll just cut off the debate and not respond to anything, because frankly that's what I expected to happen once I found the source, but for some reason it's continuing. Just to let you know. -- daniel  folsom  15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel came to my page, Rockpuppet, but he's only trying to make it sound like what he said is ok: 'Wow. Apparently new editors have no idea what they're doing ' He thinks he's done nothing wrong in making that comment. There's nothing ok about that comment. He's requested I come to his page and talk to him, but that's absolutely not going to happen because I feel uncomfortable talking to a person who thinks comments like the one above is ok, Rockpuppet, even after you've had a talk with him. Daniel wrote on my discussion page: Anyways, the reason I said new users apparently don't know what they're doing is because it was an accurate statement based on the dispute. The issue HAS NOT been resolved. EverybodyHatesChris 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My talk
Hey, by any chance if you have time could you give me some suggestions on how to rework my talk archive - because I've tried to use as few pages as possible, and I've been relatively successful, but I'm having issues with the plus button. thanks so much. -- daniel  folsom  16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, just to let you know I might have been kidna incivil with my last comment - but the allegation was completely insane and I swear it's the last comment I direct to him on the takl page. Besides - it wasn't so much incivil as it was pointing out the facts... Haha, ahhh, time to move on anyways, I just did all the major changes I wanted to the article (I'm assuming that Wikipedia doesn't go by a first name basis for example), so I'm off to another.-- daniel  folsom  05:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. If you choose to go around calling people vandals, you aren't going to get much sympathy when you complain about someone else making comments like you did. You reap what you sow. Rockpock  e  t  05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhh, I'm really having no luck on the talk pages I'm going to. First I somehow get accused of votestacking at yoghurt and now this - is this like punishment for walking under a ladder or something?-- daniel  folsom  05:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling a bit like that myself recently. Every time I try to resolve a situation, I seem to end up as the villain in someone's eyes. Its not worth worrying about, though. Rockpock  e  t  05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah it's a classy one aint it? Frankly I'm not sure why there was that amount of hype about it - I mean I expected a bit since the kids were watching, but it lasted for weeks! Uhhh. Thanks for all the responses though - and great way of putting the villian thing - I think I'm going to go over to the Peace page - and if I find a conflict on that - I may slit my wrist. (joking - but I will be upset).-- daniel  folsom  05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rockpuppet's bias w/ user danielfolsom and unconstructive remarks
Don't worry about it. If you choose to go around calling people vandals, you aren't going to get much sympathy when you complain about someone else making comments like you did.             You reap what you sow.

Rockpuppet, not constructive at all. I wasn't going around calling people vandals, and you know that. That was something that happened once or twice and I thought I could do that because she didn't have a source. Besides, this is something that happened before I was informed that it wasn't vandalism and it never happened again so you're way out of line, Rockpuppet. You had no right making it look like I call different people vandals and you're being dishonest about me, Rockpuppet, and I don't appreciate that at all. It worries me when an administrator makes comments like this, rockpuppet. You've also just made it sound like bad behavior justifies bad behavior here at wikipedia w/ comments like you reap what you sow. These aren't constructive remarks, Rockpuppet, and it worries me because you're an administrator. Now, I haven't seen you address the comments that Daniel made up above at all and I've seen you being dishonest about me. This leads me to believe there is bias going on between you and Danielfolsom and if I find that there is bias going on even once more, I'll report it to wikipedia IMMEDIATELY so they can look into it, Rockpuppet. EverybodyHatesChris 11:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note I gave User:EverybodyHatesChris a 3 hour block (since expired at the time of writing) so he might contemplate the consequences of continuing his method of contributing to Wikipedia. I have no great confidence that it will have the desired effect, so I am noting this to you in case he attempts to include you in any further actions/reactions. If you have any further problems with this editor (I am watching the previously effected pages, including this one) please let me know. LessHeard vanU 18:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * EverybodyHatesChris, if you believe I have abused my tools, or behaved in an inappropriate manner, you can open a RfC here. However, I do have to say that I think my comments were a fair reflection of the situation, and that threatening to report everyone simply because they do not agree with you is not a constructive editing strategy. Rockpock  e  t  20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)