User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 19

User:Vintagekits
Please would you stop VK adding fact tags to James Arbuthnot. - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it shouldnt be sourced or referenced? Maybe you should source it properly and I wouldnt have to - are you trying to turn this into a war? I have been nothing but polite! IN fact should you be editing the article as he is your brother and you have been blocked for editing these articles before because of WP:COI. regards--Vintagekits 20:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of adding fact tags, its obvious that any involvement from me will result in only more drama. Vk's editing has been fine since I stepped away, I would rather keep it that way.
 * Here is my opinion: If the information can be sourced, Kb, it would be much better to do so than dispute the motivation of the tag. Vk, my advice to you is to add appropriate tags, by all means, but let someone else decide whether or not a lack of sourcing should result in the content being deleted. If that advice isn't acceptable to either to you, then I suggest you ask for assistance at ANI, or the Troubles ArbCom enforcement page. Rockpock  e  t  20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Though this, while amusing, really isn't on. We can't call someone's voice "monotonous" as if it is a fact, when it is simply an opinion of someone else. How about reverting that yourself, Vk, and saving us the drama of further conflict? Rockpock  e  t  20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Before Kb came running over here to whinge to you (wonder why he chose you!?! hhhmmm!) I had left a message saying "source doesnt say he was captain - please add another source. This articles referencing is very poor. Can you please fix them all or else more fact tags will have to be added, regards" I was about to step away from the article and let him take care of it but he seems to want to turn this into something bigger.


 * I am also interested to hear views on Kb's COI here - he has been warned and blocked for this before and as this is his brothers article shirley he's is breaching this again.--Vintagekits 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is it that whenever this family come to notice it means trouble? As I point out in this edit summary, BHG is on holiday, Alison has her hands full trying to stop this kind of stupidity spilling onto Veropedia, and Giano is (ahem) otherwise occupied - and I suspect has had enough of getting involved in other people's arguments, while myself and (I suspect) Guy have had more than enough of cleaning up Arbuthnot family messes. If either of you end up getting blocked for this, you're probably on your own this time. (BTW VK, WP:COI doesn't ban him from writing on his family - it just discourages it and means he has to make sure he's neutral.) —  iride  scent  21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not wish for you to be distrubed by mine of anyone elses actions. However, I cant see what the hell I am supposed to have down here! Does Kb think that articles about his family dont have to be references? The guy is just whinging because he cant be arsed to reference it - if he doesnt want to reference it then he shouldnt write it in the first place imo.--Vintagekits 21:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Vk, you have made it perfectly clear that you consider it inappropriate for me to take action in issues related to that ArbCom case, so you can't have it both ways. If you have concerns, take them to someone that you are willing to work with. There are COI issues with editing articles about one's brother and one should be very careful in editing that page, but as Iridescent says, that does not prohibit one from editing the article. Non-controversial facts such which degree someone got is exactly the sort of thing one would expect a brother to know. Why you consider that to be dubious enough to query it, I do not know. However, if you wish to query something that is your prerogative, i'm just asking if is it really worth opening old wounds over something so trivial?
 * The only concern I have over your edits is your recent added statement at the end, Vk. It is a POV violation as it stands and I will remove it if you don't address that by rewording. Rockpock  e  t  21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Life's just grand isn't it. LOL Giano 21:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ain't that right. For the record, Giano, while I disagree with your methods, I think justice has been done. You have an uncanny ability, IMHO, to do exactly the right thing in exactly the wrong way. Its a remarkable skill you have. Rockpock  e  t  21:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough Rocky you are not the first person to say that to me but when I logged on just now thinking "Oh God what is the yellow flash to say this time!" and saw this it was just a plesure to see it and laugh out loud, and it is referenced. I'lleave you to deal with it. Giano 21:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It made me laugh too. I'm kind of hoping Vk will refactor it himself. Rockpock  e  t  21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I said I wouldnt edit the page for a week but will sort the sentance. I dont like editing here as much as you dont want me here but I only came because it was so patethic of Kb to come over bitching because he doesnt think he should have to reference his articles - if they arnt referenced its just OR.--Vintagekits 21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. However, lack of references ≠ OR. Rockpock  e  t  22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that is a piss take. I am not going to step in as I said I would stay off for a week, which I will honour - but there is a chapter from the Book of Ezekiel thing springs to mind which would be apt for my return. Kindly control you dogs!--Vintagekits 22:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. VK and KB, in my view the both of you should know better. This belongs on the article's talk anyway... instead of coming to some admin first and asking for help, why not try amicably working it out there? I've started a thread for you: Talk:James_Arbuthnot and really. I mean really. The whole thing seems rather petty to me but I may be confused. ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Kb, there is a clear conflict of interest if you intend to patrol your brothers article and delete anything that you consider to be unsuitable. Vk, your history of animosity towards Kb and his family makes the selective addition of such personal criticism, without any attempt at establishing context, questionable.
 * As both of you should have learned by now, this is the sort of low level warfare leads to incivility that leads to attacks that leads to blocks. The process has started already (Kindly control your dogs is not acceptable language, Vk. Moreover, considering you were the one that screamed foul when I attempted to "control" your inappropriate edits, you are the last person that should be asking me to deal with anyone else.) I strongly suggest you discuss it on the talk page like responsible adults and come to some sort of agreement on an appropriate wording for such content, or else I will protect the article and refer both of you to another admin for sanctions, per the ArbCom. Rockpock  e  t  23:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didnt want to come here - there are clear COI, OWN and OR issues at hand here that seem to be being overlooked. I would love ot know what I have actually done wrong here! Is Kb's problem that he doesnt want to reference his material or he doesnt want other peoples referenced material - someone needs to take that man in hand and explain for once and for all that we ALL have to abide by wiki policies NOT just me. I've done jack all wrong, if Kb doesnt want to discuss it on the talk page and prefers to run here cos he knows he can stir and drum up support then there is little I can do about that. --Vintagekits 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not get into the who did what to whom bit, that way lies danger... I reviewed the edit history and I saw that both you guys were doing things that, while technically might be "per policy" (adding fact tags, overdoing the cites and quotes so that there was a lot of material, both seemingly to make a point, etc...), just seemed like low level warfare (within the bounds of policy, yes, but not being "nice") rather than collegial editing. VK especially, what I had heard lately was that you were doing a lot of high quality work, so much so that you got a barnstar over it IIRC. I think stepping away from this article for a week is an excellent idea. Maybe KB ought to do the same and leave it to some third party to try to unhash what that section should say. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I regarded Vk's presence on that page as provocative. Nevertheless I supplied the references he requested - which were easily found. He then added text which is clearly POV (per Rockpocket) unencyclopedic (by any standard) and misattributed to Soames. He challenges me to reference "my" article (which it isn't) and continues to plead innocence (which rings a bell). The correct solution is that Vk avoids the article and somebody keeps an eye on it. If Lar or Rockpocket or Iridiscenti  think more inline refs would be helpful, then that would be fine. Meanwhile maybe a one month protection would be a good idea. And I will avoid boxers' articles. - Kittybrewster   &#9742;  00:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kb asked for help and I told him I'm not in a position to offer anything except advice for both. Vk has made it clear he not believe I should be involved in these disputes in an administrative capacity, so what does he expect me to do about the potential for COI? There is WP:COIN where Vk can report his concern to an "uninvolved" administrator. Rockpock  e  t  00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually picked on you because I thought you were online and because you are aware of the history. I don't think Vk has the right to keep you out of it and I am grateful to you and Iridiscenti for blocking the article for 24 hours. Thank you. I think it should be a month. I have asked Walton One to take over and prove the additional latest comments are neither a correct quotation, NPOV nor encyclopedic. Presumably on JA's talk page. How he does that is beyond me. i also think vk should be banned from that article. Is there a real need to reference it further? - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to help where I can, Kb, and always feel free to ask for help if you require it. If it is likely that my involvement will inflame, I may not take action direct myself, but I am always happy to offer advice or refer the issue to someone else. Vk is not keeping me out of it; I just made the decision that its in the best interests of everyone if I took a different position and, coincidentally, an opportunity came up that allowed me to do that effectively. Don't worry, I'm still very much monitoring things. I don't think there is a need to protect the article for longer at the present time, but if the edit-warring continues, that could be the outcome. There is a workable compromise to be made here, and those who are interested have enough experienced between them to work it out, assuming they don't let their personal differences get in the way.  Rockpock  e  t  21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With regard to Kitybrewster's continued editing of his politician brother's page it may be a good idea to keep an eye on this section here to see if any advice or precedents emerge on the subject. Giano 10:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea, but its also a reminder to how editing an article can feel like an academic exercise to you and I, but can have real and detrimental effects on the lives of the subjects. Its worth remembering that when considering whether to quote some trivial and personal criticism in BLP articles. Rockpock  e  t  21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I am not "under probation". - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Magnet for the Miserable
I think I have to change my user name. Almost whatever I write, I seem to attract the terminally cranky. Perhaps it is my writing style that is irrtating. Do you have any helpful ideas? Oh, and thank you for your support for the "peanut gallery" at Reference Desk/Miscellaneous. I did notice. :-) Bielle 02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't honestly think its anything to do you with personally, Bielle. In this case, if the person had read you comment a bit more carefully before lecturing you, I think they would have noticed your wording was crafted in way to not presuppose anything. Subtlety of language is rarely appreciated at the reference desk, especially among those who finds things "very irritating" and feels compelled to let us all know that. Sometimes you go through periods, on Wikipedia, when everything you do appears to be an issue for someone. Don't let it change you, it will pass. Rockpock  e  t  03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do try to write the answers carefully, just so that these kinds of misunderstandings won't happen. However, careful writing does presuppose careful reading. I shouldn't complain, though, especially to you. I did notice that one of your volcanos appears to be bubbling again. Thanks for the kind words. Bielle 03:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted
And no worries. That case brought out anger and passion in many of us. While I still have a serious issue with how some powerful people comported themselves in this case, my anger had gotten the best of me, and it took a new friend e-mailing me about it, and GRBerry (who I asked to look at my notes at Bauder's page) gently admonishing me, to get me to see it. Thanks for the note at my talkpage. Regards, Mr Which??? 14:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My first barnstar!
Thank you so much for the barnstar you left on my page - even though it gotted eaten by a bear, it's the thought that counts ;)... and on my birthday, too! (well, actually about 7 minutes after it ended, but hey, who's counting? :D). I'm actually a little confused as to what it's for, as the link you left points to the humanities reference desk, but the anchor doesn't seem to work. I'm guessing maybe the Vicky poem, but I'm not sure. Anyways, thank you! --Monorail Cat 08:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. I'm being slow. Somehow I expected the link to jump to a specific part of the page (an anchor), but instead it shows a revision I made to it, and it was indeed the Vicky poem. Thanks for your vote of confidence - I'm now ready to leave my high power millionaire job, and make it as a full time poet ;P --Monorail Cat 08:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You freaked my wife out, btw. She calls me her bear, and, at the risk of sounding like an AOL user (or MySpace user, or whatever they call 'em these days) she was 'all like' "ZOMG! They're stalking you! they know you're a bear! why'd you eated your barnstar?!" :D --Monorail Cat 08:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'd have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids. Y'know, it suddenly occurs to me just how incredibly surreal this conversation would look to anyone who viewing either my talkpage or yours, but not both together.. Oh well, let 'em wonder. I can just tell them the voices make me say these things... On a slightly more serious note, I'm happy to chat back and forth as long as you like, but if I'm spamming up your talk page too much, let me know and I can stop =) --Monorail Cat 09:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to spam with impunity for the next 9 hours, as I'm off to bed! However, before I go I feel I must point out that you seem to enjoy wearing that Spiderman costume just a little too much. Don't get me wrong, if it floats your boat than its cool with me. However, its my duty to inform you that you should not spread your Superhero fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich, lest we go rouge on your ass. And that ain't pretty. Goodnight ;) Rockpock  e  t  09:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good grief! I bring up a surreal Wikipedia page, and you raise me an even surreal..er? one! I can see it's going to be a long, long time before I've 'seen it all' here. Well, g'night, anyways, and I hope your dreams aren't tainted by images of men climbing public structures in tight leotards with insect emblems (unless that's your thing, of course, in which case.. enjoy!) :D --Monorail Cat 09:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the last line can be tricky! Tyrenius (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Hitting the Beeb is big-time, indeed though Nature was right up there to start with. I wonder if what you have discovered (with the aid of a colleague or two) is the same reaction that causes people dealing with horses never to take into the stall of one stallion a rag that has touched another stallion, and contains its his sweat. Bielle (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I really have to bring my congratulations here also. Dear Rockpocket, you are my virtual friend and mentor; and that's as fulsome as Clio gets!  ♥ Clio the Muse (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. It is exciting times indeed, we just heard that my boss has been interviewed for an appearance on Good Morning America tomorrow!
 * That is a very interesting question, Bielle. Although it isn't in this paper, we have since been looking more closely at the proteins, where they are found and in what other species the same system is likely to be at play. As it happens I have found one horse protein of the same type. It was originally described by immunologists as a potent allergen, and we know that it is found in horse saliva and skin dandruff (the mouse ones are found in saliva too). No-one has looked to see if it is in sweat (yet). I wasn't aware that there was such a behavioural response to sweat in stallions, that is really interesting. Are you familiar with it, if so have you ever noticed the characteristic Flehmen response in stallions when smelling the rag? That would be a real clue as to the mechanism is similar. Let me speak to my colleagues about this and I'll get back to you, as it could be something we could look at. Rockpock  e  t  02:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Being allergic to horses, I don't spend time near them if I can help it. The comment arose from a murder mystery, of all things.  I can't recall if the book was by John Francome or Dick Francis. They both write murder mysteries set in the horse-racing community, and both are known for the realistic settings of their books. In the book of which I speak, all sweat rags, and the "lab coats" worn by staff around stallions, were left with each stallion, and never carried into the stall area of another stallion. By making this mistake, one character in the book was trampled to death by a stallion. (I suggest then that a trial of letting a stallion smell the rag of another stallion might get a more energetic response than you would like.) I can check the real world with a friend whose horse farm has 200 breeding thoroughbred mares, but not until tomorrow night. If she hasn't noticed the Flehmen response among the stallions she has and/or uses, then perhaps someone on her staff has. Now, what army (national or private) will be interested in applying this aggressive response to humans, and what domestic-violence help group will be interested in its reverse application? You will be busy for quite some time, I suspect. Bielle (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be interested in any information your friend could provide, Bielle. There is no direct implication for human behaviour, I'm afraid. We only have one copy of the gene (mice have 20) and it is pseudogenized and thus non-functional. Moreover, we don't have a functional version of the organ mice use to detect it. However, it is the first step towards identifying a specific neural circuit in the brain that encodes a complex behaviour in mammals. Thats where we are going next and that is where is becomes relevant to humans in terms of behavioural disorders.
 * Its been a day of much drama indeed, here. My wife's lab was evacuated today after an animal right group warned they had left a bomb in the building, and then someone found what appeared to be a propane tank covered in bullets. The FBI were called and, 10 hours later, have just announced that it wasn't armed, which is a relief. Rockpock  e  t  04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Out here in the country, buried in snow, excitement is a hairy woodpecker that flew into my bedroom window and now lies dead on the snow of the deck. I can't even get to the body as there is too much ice under the snow. I prefer my drama to yours, though I wish the bird hadn't died. They often fly into our windows and then bounce away to recover in a nearby birch, spruce or willow. No bomb threats, please, but, if you must have them, may they always be false alarms. I will report back on what my horse-breeding friend has to say. Bielle (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So I'm reading the BBC website and I suddenly realise you were probably inspired by wikipedia to start this research. Or maybe you were drawn to wikipedia to prove your thesis? :) David D. (Talk) 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Territorialism, male aggression, pissing matches... you're right, it could be about Wikipedia! Rockpock  e  t  00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Where do the girls fit in here?! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Girls? There are no girls here, everyone knows they are just manipulative sock puppets accounts of males. Rockpock  e  t  00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Truth will out! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I look forward to that! (Rockpocket's filthy mind goes into overdrive) Rockpock  e  t  00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, what's the virtual equivalent of a pheromone? A green signature? ---Sluzzelin talk  01:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My experience tells me it is one of these: [[Image:Admin_mop.PNG|22px]] Rockpock  e  t  01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! We need to find volunteers willing to blindly sniff admin-shirts in order to substantiate that! (*Takes one step back*) By the way, in your olfactory studies, has anyone ever mentioned that there's a German expression I can't smell him (meaning "I can't stand him")? Perhaps our ancestors knew more than we like to assume. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I spoke to my horse-breeding friend. She said she would ask someone with serious practical knowledge. Owners, she says, provide money, facilities, equipment, money and more money; the staff are the ones that know horses. Aside from knowing that stallion corrals are always round (so that nothing, including them) can be cornered in them, and that stallions are generally kept as far apart as the real estate will allow, she relies on the expertise of others. I wil report when I hear back. Bielle (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects
Thank you for the warm welcome on my page! Maybe you can tell me how to become involved with a Wikiprojects group? It seems a great way to dive in and start contributing.SkyllaLaFey (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Graduation
Hey Rockpocket, I haven’t needed to ask you for help in ages, so I guess I’m ready to graduate from my Wiki-adoption. Thanks so much for your help! I’ll try to do the same for another new Wikipedian someday when I have the necessary experience. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi S.dedalus, while I have probably been somewhat negligent recently in following your edits, what I have seen has been top notch (mainly at the Ref Desks). Briefly looking over your edit history, its clear you most certainly are familiar enough with Wikipedia that you could guide newbies. Its been my pleasure to work with you and feel free to drop by in the future if there is anything I can assist you with. I'll change the userbox to a graduation one presently! Rockpock  e  t  00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rockpocket! You’ve given me a terrific head-start here. See you ‘round. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Holiday template
Hi, Rockie! Once again I turn to you for help, though this time on a very minor matter. I'll be jetting of to Africa just before Christmas, as you know. I would like to put an 'I'm off on holiday template' on my user page prior to this, just in case anybody is wondering where I am. I saw a nice one some time ago on another user's page, with a cute little aeroplane! So far I've not been able to locate this. Could you please point me in the right direction? Thanks ever so. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this: undefined
 * what you’re looking for? There are many at WP:WIKIBREAK. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

TimeShift9's talk page.
He doesn't like the contribution of anyone who disagrees with him.

He also like to get people banned for things he did wrong.

But, hey, let's just let people tell him what he did wrong so he can ignore/delete it and never have to improve.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe that is so, but nothing will be achieved by revert warring with him on his own talk page, other than you getting blocked for WP:3RR. Just let it go. Rockpock  e  t  06:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe he'll learn to wake up for himself. He's already got me 3RR blocked because he refused to stop using the Australian Election 2007 talk page as a forum on Preferential Voting.
 * Weeks later and he's still behaving arrogantly, and I think he needs to wake up.
 * Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its difficult to see how he alone got you 3RR blocked - I'm assuming it wasn't him that hit your revert button 4 times? Nevertheless, looking at your exchange, and from my own experience with Timeshift, its clear his understanding of civility is not exactly crystal clear. But, y'know people begin to notice these things and over time those editors who are chronically incivil begin to attract attention. In the meantime, put that one down to experience and move on. Getting yourself blocked again is not going to help. Rockpock  e  t  06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you think he deletes negative stuff from his page? Could it be because he knows that it  slows down the chances of people noticing and attracting attention.
 * OK, yeah, I did 3RR, but only in attempt to kill a quickly growing non-wiki discussion. I did kill it, but I did break a rule.  I was punished for it.  Although it was generally agreed that Timeshift did wrong nothing was done about that.  And so he gets away with it.  Again.
 * Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * At that time the discussion was restored and actually did continue to a natural conclusion, for the record - only one other person agreed with the user that the discussion was "wrong". Orderinchaos 07:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet afterwards many people did. Which is why it was officially removed.
 * And I disagree with your claim that it that it ended naturally. After all, after you restored it, only one person added to it.  You.  It seems to me that maybe the removal of the thread may have caused most sensible people to realise they were in the wrong.
 * Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know why he does it, but its not unusual and neither is it against policy (currently). A lot of people do, though it tends to be people that see Wikipedia as a battleground that does so. I, personally, think because its the one area that an editor has an element of individual control over on Wikipedia. So when there is a dispute, they feel an element of "victory" since their "opponent" is not permitted to revert them. There is also the aspect of removing it from view, so a pattern of behaviour less obvious. That doesn't work too well, though. As I said, people notice and they remember.
 * Look, two people can behave equally badly on wikipedia and one can get blocked and the other doesn't simply because the latter knows how the system works. That might work in the short term, but if you game the system long enough you get caught out. Its not worth worry about it, what is important is your behaviour. Stick to the rules, be polite and you will be fine. Let other people be rude if they want to, it will catch up with them in the end. Rockpock  e  t  07:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
I finally discovered my inbox on my wiki profile account, and just wanted to send a thank you for the welcome letter you sent me.

-- Saukkomies —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
for your contrubution in talk:Biopsychiatry controversy when I was on a wiki-break. I already posted some comments in that page. Cesar Tort 22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Errors on page about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Hi Rockpocket: I'm the communications director for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and I've noted a number of serious errors on the page about our organization. These problems need to be fixed right away. What is the best way to proceed?

Thanks.

Patrick Sullivan psullivan@pcrm.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.174.91 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

wotcha rockpocket
hi Rockpocket, me and mine are generally ok, have not been active due to being off work long term. Some crazy shit happened a few months ago, and perry Jr was not at all well. Jr now fitting fit (our little Lionheart) and the family is looking forward to christmas. Congrats on the nature article, mmm mouse piss... you and yours have a good one and hopefully my inane and unhelpful comments will return to the ref pages soon wahoo!Perry-mankster (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Claus Wedekind
He seems to be known for a good deal of other work as well, so I removed the Prod. You might want to add some of it from his CV, and perhaps a citation count from Web of Science. Which would be the best article if he were known only for that work is an interesting & unsettled question. Some would go with an article on the specific study, but I would generally prefer the scientist, because the scientist is the article likely to be expanded.. However, in this case there isn't really much doubt that he should have a separate article-- He seems to be primarily an authority on sperm competition in fish. My guess is that the Tshirt study was done as a diversion, & got picked up as interesting--certainly most people might think it more interesting than his main subect. The eds. judgment there is not infallible:), but I think he was right this time. DGG (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * followed up on my user talk page.DGG (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Using Wikiversity Appropriately
Rockpocket, I wanted to thank you personally for recommending that A.Z. come learn and contribute to Wikiversity while he sorts out issues with arbcom, perhaps overly zealous editors, and learns how to interact more effectively with wiki communities. I view it as a large learning opportunity for the current Wikiversity community attempting to grow the community and develop methods sufficient to run a large set of virtual distributed learning environments via wikimedia and other software and the internet. Below I have attempted to award you a Wikiversity Barnstar. I am not certain that it will work accross wikis so I will tell you verbally it is the basic barnstar. No, syntax appears different. Text gets point accross however, 3 is current the "Shooting Star". Nice shot! 8) Thanks again and keep up the good work! v:user:mirwin 26 Dec 07

Troubles Arbcom
Thanks for the concern Rockpocket, appreciated. I have no idea where to find the "ruling" - could you give me a link? Call me St Thomas, but I need to study it myself - I appear to mis-remember it - I was sure it said IPs could be reverted at will. (And if it didn't it certainly should have 'cos the present mess only facilitates puppets etc. Happy New Year; I will strive not to get blocked - but you know me! (Sarah777 (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

RfC user:A.Z.
My understanding is that they want us to contact ArbCom in private. However, my understanding of policy also shows that an RfC could be used if there are 2 people that object to the conduct of a user. --CyclePat (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Troubles Arbcom again
Hi. There was an "War-box" added to The Troubles article without any consensus and despite the history of the article. I changed it to reflect a more acceptable (to me) version pending discussion and agreement. User:Traditional unionist simply reverted my change within seconds; I reinstated and he reverted again, threatening to "report me" if I changed it back. Now Trad U is a named participant at the Troubles Workshop and is under very clear, strict and unambiguous orders to make no more than one revert per week:

"2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert."

As I have been twice blocked once, without any relief, for accidentally breaching 3RR I call on you to block User:Traditional unionist for breaching his terms of probation. (What he did was clear edit-warring in any case - but this is an automatic like 3RR, or else it means nothing).

Regards (Sarah777 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

As his last revert was illegal, either you should revert it or I should be allowed to do so; or better still - remove the box until it is discussed and agreed. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
 * I really resent your tone when responding to this. Sarah was attempting to ignore the principle of discussion and consensus, which I was protecting the page from.  Yet I am being implicated for edit warring.  I am not the problem in this instance and resent the implication that I am.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * TU; you were warring with Domer and breached 3RR for crissakes! None of us here are Saints. Did I not already apologise to you? (Sarah777 (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC))


 * I didn't mean to implicate you were the problem, TU. I was trying to explain that edit-warring is a problem and it takes more than one person to edit-war. Editors almost always consider their actions are to "protect the page" from something, with editors on the other side attempting to do the same. That is what leads to an editor war. Whether Sarah was most at fault in this particular instance is rather beside the point. You were blocked for edit-warring on another page at the same time, suggesting that you are as willing to edit-war as she is. Unless vandalism is involved, hitting the revert button more than once in succession is almost never a good idea. If you both followed WP:BRD, then this problem would go away. Rockpock  e  t  20:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer v Admins and others
Hi Rockpocket, sorry to return so quickly to this issue but if my reading of this is correct Domer is being hounded a bit. This was something he posted on another page User talk:Heimstern:

I feel I must respond to the above editor, and possibly you might have some advice. On the Kevin Barry article they abuse their admin tools, and then had to be warned about it. They follow me to the Segi article and start there, adding things to referenced text. They then go and block me. Admin John was decent enough to provide the diff's. While other editors noted the COI (they did not respond), which is an abuse of admin tools, admin SirFozzie was the only one who would agreed that the Diff's did show they were for different things (not the same edit). I did not even get put on a 3rr report. I reported them for a 3 rr same situation, and they walk away from it. It then got to the stage were Fozz gave them a strong warning, which they ignored, and told Admin John to to leave their incivility in a post. Regardless of all this they still can not be civil. It was as a result of this that I learn that they have a history of this. Another Admin had to step in on the Patrick Pearsearticle. They Block another editor, and thought light of it. And have been pulled judging from a page littered with civility warnings. Now they have followed me to more articles Irish Volunteers, Sean Heuston, Thomas Clarke, Easter Rising, Roger Casement and the afore mentioned Patrick Pearse article. Having filed another 3 rr notice still were not blocked for edit warring. And still the abuse because I read. Then their buddy jumps in notice the last revert on this article. To top it all they abused their admin tool to edit an article which was protected despite no agreement reached, and dispite being warned not to. Admin SirFozzie started an AN/I report which went no were, and is still hanging in the air. They now accuse me of being an IRA supporter because I like to edit Republican history articles. So if I got the hump with your block, you may now understand. Any advice would be welcome, could you please post on my talk page.--Domer48 (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought tailing an editor across Wiki was verboten? Should I maybe take a keen interest in some of these editor's work? This will lead to chaos unless someone calls a halt. I would be interested in your considered views on the situation - I have no suggestion what to do as I don't know at this stage. (Sarah777 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC))