User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 22

Giano
Thanks Rockpocket, for the info. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Citizendium
You considered leaving the joys and excitement of Wikepedia behind for the sterile life at this other place? Well, I would have missed you. I suppose that it is possible to do both, but only if you don't mind having your RL identity attached to the one on Wikipedia in a definitive way. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about it for a while, during the period I was seething over a run in I had with StuRat. But I don't really edit in my area of professional expertise all that much here, so I wasn't really convinced it would be a particularly productive move. Besides, there is something about the organized chaos that is Wikipedia that I quite enjoy and I have grown quite attached to some of the personalities here. I certainly don't have the time to do both, so I decided to come back ;).

Hello
Thanks for the welcome. Hopefully I should stay around for a while now. :) -Localzuk(talk) 10:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis
Hello, Rockpocket. I remember you once analyzed a month or so of RD activity, also counting the related changes made in article-space, I don't know how, but I think that's what you did. I can't find it though. Do you know what I'm talking about and, if so, do you have a link? I want to somehow include it at WP:RDAC. Thanks. ---Sluzzelin talk  11:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have been neglecting WP:RDAC recently, I hope to update it soon. Anyway, the stats are at User:Rockpocket/Ref desk stats, feel free to use them however you wish. Rockpock  e  t  19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Funny, I seemed to remember you having counted all subsequent article changes performed by desk volunteers in a given time period, even minor and untemplated changes. Maybe by using "related changes" or something. Was I mistaken? ---Sluzzelin talk  14:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't do that, I'm afraid. I wouldn't even know how to! At the time of the analysis I counted the number of articles that had the WPRDAC template. There was 68 articles improved in 10 months. Rockpock  e  t  18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

unsuccessful Rfa candidate reaches new lows
Here he is mentoring a relatively new contributor to also become uncivil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss06470#second_warning.2C_no_personal_attacks
 * ":In the edit summary, put an apology for (if that's accurate) failing to AGF (assume good faith). Or you can add an apology insertion right after the struck out text. Like this:


 *  Scuro has evil intent, obviously in the pay of the drug companies [I apologize, I was having difficulty understanding his motives]"

What irks me is that he knows better.--scuro (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The apprentice is now practicing the lesson taught by user Abd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Media_Coverage_of_the_ADHD_Controversy_should_not_be_a_list_of_everyone_who_wrote_an_article_related_to_ADHD_controversy.


 * Great Ned.  You belong here guarding this site from the likes of me and them.    Oh is that insulting?  My apologies.  Where are you Scuro?  Or have you taken on a few user names Whoops My apologies

User Abd also speaks of restraining me. Are editors to restrain other editors or are we act in good faith? What action would be most effective to make this stop?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss06470#Your_comment_on_Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder:_controversies_on_22:45.2C_29_February_2008
 * Dr. Sobo, you are correct that there has been long-term biased push on these articles, and Wikipedia is vulnerable to such efforts. Short-term push can be dealt with, but long-term, persistent warping of an article by someone really determined to do so can be very effective. However, be careful. Thinking of Wikipedia as a battleground can lead you into some serious mistakes, such as that here. Archiving of Talk is essential. If it is done incorrectly, it can be fixed. History remains for all of it. Nothing is lost. But the goal here is the article, not Talk. I've been distracted elsewhere, or I'd have been more active restraining the particular editor who is tangling with you. Abd (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

--scuro (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref desk
Interesting stuff like this is the reason I watch the ref desk :). Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear it, Seraphim Whipp. I too enjoy finding unlikely gems of obscure information while browsing the desks. Rockpock  e  t  18:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Email
Rock, you have a fairly important email from me. Please reply soon as you can, it's important. I think there's some things you need to know ASAP. SirFozzie (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Qwenton
I believe you recently unblocked Qwenton following his temporary ban for for harassing other users and after his vandalism of other users' pages, and warned him to stop making personal attacks. You might like to look at his postings since being unblocked, specifically: "Liar and cheater Emeraude says I vandalise user pages..." and "Trickster and con-man One Night In Hackney..." from this page and his unwelcome additions to my talk page. It seems to me that he intends to carry on his vendetta, and from his comments in the AfD that he is not prepared to accept consensus in the BNP article that led to his outbursts. Emeraude (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...... One Night In Hackney  303  23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I blocked the user for the continuing incivility and attempts to harass other users. Hope that is all right with you. --John (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats fine by me. He doesn't seem to get the message, does he? Rockpock  e  t  18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Yup, I'd just figured out that there was something afoot. I think I'm going to revert myself (at least, in those cases that haven't already been reverted) until such time, if any, as neutrality is achieved. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your offer but I'll revert myself first. That way I can believe that I've avoided making it any worse. D'you think it's possible that vivisection ought not to be a dab page? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, based on the dozen or so pages I looked at. I'm a little surprised that this diff didn't generate more controversy. I'm wondering if I have the energy to take this on. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:HARASS
Rockpocket, I am being harrassed by Traditional unionist on my talkpage. It resulted from my removal of his addition of Unionist pov from the Dunmanway article. Could you please revert his pov change and warn him about 3RR and pov insertion. I do not want to engage myself - but this is a good test of whether the civility that some Admins have been preaching actually applies in practice. If TU isn't dealt with the choices become limited somewhat. Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just complained elsewhere about this accusation. I fail to see how I've been unreasonable.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Brteach of WP:3RR by TU:

Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) cur) (last)  23:35, 8 March 2008 Traditional unionist (Talk | contribs) m (9,744 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Sarah777; Independence granted in 1949, recognised from 1937 or 1922, not 1918. (TW)) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 23:33, 8 March 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (9,753 bytes) (Independance declared 1918 thus Brit was occupying army; pl DO NOT reinsert pov) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 23:29, 8 March 2008 Traditional unionist (Talk | contribs) m (9,744 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Sarah777; 1918 is not independance - pov. (TW)) (undo)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 23:27, 8 March 2008 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (9,753 bytes) (post 1918 election; thus fact, not pov) (undo)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 17:51, 8 March 2008 Traditional unionist (Talk | contribs) m (9,744 bytes) (→History: pov) (undo)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 14:57, 3 March 2008 Dppowell (Talk | contribs) (9,753 bytes) (rm unsourced statement (13 months)) (undo)


 * Just a brushfire Rock! Thanks for your patience - as always :-) Sarah777 (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a reasonable edit, it was reverted in an unreasonable way. I opened a discussion about it, I was dismissed as "aggressive". Then a campaign opened, which is not unreasonable to call harassments against me, simply for disagreeing with an editor who was recently unblocked with a promise of civility. And this isn't the only article she's breaking the verifiability rules on. So I'm warned for approaching 3RR, but the other editor gets away with breaking the conditions for an unblock, throwing a violent strop, and being disruptive for hours? We all cross the line sometimes, but I'm pretty unhappy about this is being handled.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a pov edit reverted in a reasonable way - then you started edit warring. Your statements on my page were aggressive. I broke no conditions as there were none - the block would have expired in a matter of hours anyway. And there were no "verifiability rules" broken! The only reason I agreed to the ONIH compromise was because I realised that this dispute could potentially to every village in Ireland - NOT because I thought my edit was not 100% correct. And that yours was 100% pov. Sarah777 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And the reason I took the case to various Admins rather than tackling your pov directly was because that is what I was advised to do by said various Admins and I cannot see anything wrong with the way it was handled - I was also told  (by several Admins) that if I made another revert it would be 3RR (which I knew anyway). You are being provocative; you are well aware that I have been editing many articles for over a year to eliminate any suggestion that the view that Ireland was legally Independent as a result of the formation of the First Dail is less legitimate than the Unionist/British view. Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

TU. I "warned" you that you were approaching 3RR because you were approaching 3RR. I also "warned" Sarah for the exact same thing. I did so because I didn't want to have to block anyone for 3RR when it could be avoided. I wasn't aware there was any conditions to Sarah's unblocking, so that was not a factor in my response. Could you point me to where those conditions were elucidated? If you are unhappy with my "warning" then remove it from your page. I don't mind. Look, everything was resolved they way it should be, with discussion on the talk page. Can we all move on, please? Rockpock e  t  23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Banned Users
Hello Rockpocket. Thanks for informing me of Vk's previous promise to limit himself within Boxing articles. I sure wish he'd stop creating 'sockpuppets'. There's always editors out there, who can't/won't appreciate what being 'indefinetly banned' means. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have heard that promise before. The irony is, of course, that were he to actually respect the block and go and do something productive for a few months before coming back to Wikipedia, then he probably would be permitted to edit again under probation. But each time he sock puppets that becomes less likely. Its worth remembering that he was indef blocked this time not because of attacks or incivility or POV pushing on controversial articles, but because he used sock puppets last time he was indef blocked and used one to vote stack in the ArbCom election. His boxing socks are easy to spot, but God knows how many other accounts he has at the moment and what he is using them for. Rockpock  e  t  21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed in VK's usage of uncivil language. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hardly even notice anymore. The consequences of excessive and persistent swearing and insults is the inability to articulate. People stop listening to what you have to say. Rockpock  e  t  22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nip in bud?
Would you take a look at 1801 in Ireland and the edits by Astotrain? He added a flag to the article; in the entire series of hundreds of articles there are no other images used. Also the flag - if allowed - will lead to chaos and warring on this series. I made one revert but feel the sooner we move this to discussion the better. Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked Astrotrain to stop adding it back. It is needlessly provocative with marginal encyclopaedic value. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Rockpock  e  t  23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But if I may offer a bit of advice, Sarah. Have a read of WP:VANDAL. Astrotrains edits were not vandalism. If you don't like your good-faith edits being labeled as "POV", then don't label others' as "vandalism". Doing so will likely elicit an "aggressive" response, like the one you took issue with yesterday. Rockpock  e  t  23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Rock, maybe I shouldn't have called them that in the edit summary (civility etc) but my views on the the nature of the addition of the flag are clear - you'd not have me tell lies I hope? Sarah777 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I shouldn't have called them that - period! Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call, my rule of thumb is to avoid the v-word as much as possible, in doing so I find that people respond more favorably. Rockpock  e  t  00:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion on WP:TER. One Night In Hackney  303  23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rockpocket, I have left a rely for you on User_talk:Domer48 regarding your comments there and Astrotrains talkpage.--Padraig (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano II
So, 'Catherine' is a sockpuppet of Giano's. Well, I think I'll depart the discussion, as sockpuppetry humour is 'dishonest' humour, IMHO. Thanks for identifying 'Catherine', for me. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some laughs to be had with Ma'am, but, yes, now is probably a good time to depart. Rockpock  e  t  20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You have mail
As above. One Night In Hackney 303  22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bearnstar
Thanks for the Bearnstar. I know we are supposed to "be polite and assume good faith" when answering questions on the reference desk (and I usually am), but I just couldn't help myself this time. Glad to know I made you laugh. Thomprod (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Big thanks
You really didn't have to do that, but thanks very much! It was very sweet of you :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that
Thanks for the comments on the barnstar. --Domer48 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland flag issue
Hi Rockpocket, I've seen mention in a couple of places that you are interested in helping find a consensus solution to the ongoing edit-warring related to use of the "Ulster banner". This would be most welcome — we need an experienced mediator (or two, or three...) for assistance. A few months ago, I (perhaps semi-naively) tried to help with the last attempt, archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage. That mediation failed miserably for three reasons, in my opinion: This is not intended to be a list of personal attacks — it's just my personal assessment of what happened.
 * 1) User:Dantheman531 was not experienced enough to mediate this case, and was absent for extended periods
 * 2) User:Padraig, as the spokesman of one side of the debate, was unwilling to concede any compromise, only agreeing to positions he had previously agreed with
 * 3) User:Astrotrain, as the other spokesman, was unable to adequately articulate his position, and many of his comments appeared "poisioned" by past actions

My own opinion, as someone who is relatively detached from the issue (I'm not Irish or British), is that there is a compromise position remaining to be found, but it does require some good-faith movement from both sides. My attempt at documenting (in a fair amount of detail), what I thought that middle-ground position was is described in this thread. Please take a look at the previous discussion (and the archives of Talk:Northern Ireland have a lot of this too). Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC


 * Any compromise has to be supported by RS AND V in line with wikipedia policy, astrotrain has failed to provide these for the uses he wants, this whole debate would be simply resolved if he provided these, yet he either won't or can't do so, but still wants to use the image anywhere in WP ignoring WP policy. So why should we agree to the insertion of POV and OR to appease a edit warrior, which breaches the findings of the troubles arbcom.
 * The problem is that admins are not implementing the rulings of the arbcom in this instance, I was threatened with 1RR probation for making one revert made by a anon IP, a anon IP that was later blocked for edit warring on the same article, yet Astrotrain has a long list of blocks for edit warring on this issue and been warned before that he would be placed on arbcom probation if he edited warred on this issue, yet he is able to return after a few months and start again and nothing is done except him being warned again.--Padraig (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If he continues to edit war, we now have a measure to curb that. No problem there, if another round of edit-warring occurs then I will have no hesitation of adding him to the probation list. As for having gone through this before, well, that is why I proposed you look at what AT is going to propose with fresh eyes. Perhaps he will come up with proposals not dissimilar to the ones you put forward last time. That sounds like it could be fertile middle ground. If his proposals are not policy compliant and lack verification, then there is little chance of them going forward, so you don't have to worry there either.
 * I would recommend, though, that you don't dismiss any effort to resolve conflict on these articles without even hearing what is being put forward. That really isn't a reasonable stance to make and as I said before, with these things the reasonable editors tend to move forward and those unwilling to be reasonable get marginalized. I believe you are a reasonable editor who is, perhaps understandably, sick and tired of this. But please don't bail out now. lets hear what AT has to say first and see if it has anything workable.
 * Andrwsc. Thanks for that summary. I'll have a look over the threads when I get a chance. Rockpock  e  t  22:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'am prepared to look at his proposals, but I'am not prepared to have a rehash of the previous mediation attempt again, if his proposals include RS and WP:V sources then they will be welcome, but without those then no compromise with him is possible. Also I'am not going to discuss each template or article individually as that is just a waste of energy and has already been tried and failed.--Padraig (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud, Padraig, focus on the issue not the person. You continue to throw around wiki policy alphabet soup and criticize Astrotrain's edits.  Forget about him, if that helps.  What does it take to get a consensus that all Wikipedia editors can work with?  It's not just about the two of you.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus (on Wiki) is 60% percent of a vote - and clearly defined as such (ref User:John). It certainly isn't meant to be something that all editors can accept; not even nearly all! Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Still hurting about losing that one Sarah? I always like these quotes on this subject:


 * Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (from the Christian Scriptures)


 * Repair the evil done to you with something that is better. And lo! The enemy who did evil to you may turn into a close and true friend. (from the Muslim Scriptures)


 * In all seriousness, it might be better not to deliberately misrepresent what I have said on the subject of consensus, as I know how much you like editing here. --John (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Golly gosh I only spotted this now. Is that a threat? I am just soooo scared. Nope, John, in all seriousness I distinctly recall you claiming consensus on the basis of 60% of the vote. That means that consensus = 60% of vote John. Thus these things are, according to you, decided by a vote. Stop haggling about the price. Sarah777 (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I will make this really really simple for you. Consensus is not a vote. If you still don't get it, I don't think I can simplify it any further for you. John (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck; I had a bash at trying to find some common ground. See: User_talk:Major_Bonkers/Archive_Aug_2007. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Update Astrotrain has been put on 1RR probation on all troubles related articles, templates etc . Hopefully that will be the end of the matter.--Padraig (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is that Padraig's claim that the flag is called the Ulster Banner is, as far as I have seen, without verification by a reliable source. Also, his claim that it is defunct is supported by only two sources, one of which is a House of Lords report, the political expediency of which smells a mile off. I don't think that this issue has ever actually been studied on wikipedia. There are plenty of experienced, uninvolved and properly academic editors around who could be called upon to actually research the issue, find the sources and come to some sort of conclusion for discussion. That's how I would go.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Urgent
Rock, some Admin called "Thatcher" has added my name to a list of blocks related to the "Troubles" Arbcom. I had specifically pointed out that I was no party to that nor were the blocks (for dissing some warring Admins) related to it. Yet Thatcher added my name. I reverted. Please investigate asap. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for adding me to this list? That I'm Irish and therefore guilty? I am on the verge of a mega incivility on Thatcher's page. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm running very late for an appointment Sarah, so I'm afraid I don't have time to deal with this until later this evening. Thatcher is a clerk and it is his job to ensure thing are, erm, clerked properly. He is also a very polite man (or indeed a woman, but not that Thatcher, before you ask!), so please explain to him nicely that you were not party to that ArbCom and have never been sanctioned under its remedies, therefore you don't believe you should be listed there. When I get back (probably early morning in the civilized world) I will inquire further about it myself. Rockpock  e  t  00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm off to 'mo leaba' myself; I had already explained all this after Fozzie......Gawd this gets complicated....zzzzzzzSarah777 (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help (not urgent)
If you know, please can you tell me what's happened to Werdnabot? Werdnabot is supposed automatically to archive my Talk page, but now appears as a red link on the large banner at the top of the page. Meanwhile, the rubbish is continuing to pile up! I wouldn't mind so much, but I've also helped out a new editor (West one girl) by adding the template to her page as well. Trust you are well; thank you for any help you can give. (I also reckon you need a long service medal to go with that VC of yours... !) --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your help. (I notice that you don't often see 'thank you' on your Talk page!) --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, Major. Sadly not everyone has the same appreciation of good manners as you do. Rockpock  e  t  01:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Rockpocket. Am I being too sensisitive or paranoid? or does the User page Catherine de Burgh, violate User Page policies. It seems more like a sock-puppet or simply a Joke page. Just curious. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not be called a sock pocket on my own Encyclopaedia (with a diphthong), I have been here for a great deal of time, and I can assure the site is better for my presence. I hold no grudges at all against you, not in my nature. In fact you have my greatest support, in your edits here. I note you live on Prince Edward Island, how nice that must be, all those penguins and things to look at - quite charming. I remember when one of my late husbands was Governor General, we passed by on the yacht, and I wanted to stop, but my husband pointed out That musical play Anne of Green Gables, which has run every year on the Island for more than forty years, was in full voice, so he had the boilers stoked instead. Such a pity as I expect the locals must be word perfect by now, the finale must be rather like Aida -  at La Scala (do you know La Scala? - very provincial, but they do change the program every season) except of course the Italians cry, such an emotional race, no stiff upper lip like we Brits.  I can assure you I violate nobody or their pages. I'm sure that nice Mr. Rocketpocket will confirm this. Do give my love to the penguins - such attractive intelligent creatures. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Penguins on PEI? I rest my case Rockpocket. PS- I didn't ask for your opinon CdB.GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Kitty. Sarah777 (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is Kitty. John (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've read the rumours that it is Giano but I don't like tossing allegations about like spaghetti at a wake. Sarah777 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello GoodDay. There is generally some tolerance of joke or spoof user pages, especially when there is no real possibility someone would take it seriously. Poking fun at the upper classes is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, in my opinion, but some people get a kick out of it. My advice is just to ignore her or him. The more editors get irked by such spoof accounts, the more the person behind it is encouraged.
 * As for who is behind it, well I inadvertently "outed" Giano because I thought it was pretty obvious based on his previous comments. If he says it isn't him, then I guess it isn't him. So its someone else in his coterie. Exactly who is not worth worrying about. Rockpock  e  t  01:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My coterie? Wow do I have a coterie? I must be going up in the world. Giano (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense Rock; I'll follow your advice (ignore CdB). GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct Mr Rocketpocket, poking fun at the upper classes, is shameful and should be outlawed. When I think that such second rate writers as  Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw and Noel Coward all made careers out of such impudence, not to mention that horrid Henry James (but he was American, so I suppose one has to make allowances), but then so of course was darlingest Consuelo, in her very amusing little book - Oh how we all giggled at the Crown Prince's discomfiture, but I was shocked by that - believe me truly shocked.   I can scarcely believe such profanity was allowed - I just hope no ordinary type common people ever read such works, thank God hardly any of them can read. You are quite correct Mr Rocketpocket - these authors, poking fun at the upper classes are all to be frowned upon,  I would shoot the lot. Now lets all go over to Prince Edward Island for another rousing chorus of Anne of Greengables. That's what common people want, not to read about their betters, I'm sure Mr Goodday can teach us all the words. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jdorney - repeated insertion of pov language
Rock; as per your advice again rather than edit "war" (even to remove patent pov in this case) I think you should take a look at Irish Rebellion of 1641 and explain to Mr Dorney that - other than in the case of a direct quote where I incorrectly deleted the word - massacre is a pov word and the more neutral killing is much more appropriate as per Wiki policy. I have now spent a year, on and off, trying to explain to Mr Downey big the difference between knowing a lot about an event and writing about it in an NPOV manner. Sarah777 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This problem appears to be self-correcting Rock. Having said that I'm rather glad my house wasn't on fire, IYKWIM. Sarah777 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fireman Sarah, I am a janitor (and an unpaid one that that). When real life issues are pressing the revert-warring over a 350 year old rebellion is not top of my agenda. The world does not end if massacred rather than killed is in the article for a few days. As it happens, I was stuck on a hand held over the last day or two which makes doing some tasks on Wikipedia rather challenging.
 * That said, I have reverted the recent edits that certainly do have a POV slant back to the more neutral version as asked the person involved to take it to the take page. Let me know if he continues to revert and I'll have a word. Rockpock  e  t  01:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and PBS has in turn reverted your edits to the POV version. I reverted back to your version and he reverted again and then protected his version using his Admin powers. Now if that isn't Admin edit warring and abuse of Admin tools - what is? He also has moved the discussion of Irish Rebellion to the "Massacres" talk page; no doubt to ensure his allies over there are engaged. But that is hardly good practice. Should I take the entire conversation to the Irish Republican Wikiproject to see if I can get all the usual Socks involved? Sarah777 (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Sarah, I have been so busy recently, I haven't had an opportunity to respond to your requests. Has this been resolved yet? From what I can tell, PBS didn't protect the article, he only semi-protected to insure against sock puppetry. That did not give any advantage to "his version" and it didn't restrict you or anyone else involved from editing it. Ultimately there should be debate about this and an agreement based on consistency. Its not an issue about whether the Irish were massacred or the British were massacred, it should be about whether massacre is a good noun (or indeed, verb) to describe killings of a certain magnitude. Where that discussion takes place doesn't seem particularly important, since the result should be applicable to articles about killings perpetrated from both sides.
 * Let me know if there is something specific I can do to assist with these discussions. The revert-warring appears to have subsided, which is good. I should note that I will have a limited presence here for the next week or so then be pretty much entirely absent for the whole month of April (I am traveling to a remote South Pacific Island for a few weeks for some research, followed by a vacation in the Antipodes). Rockpock  e  t  18:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Could you have a look at this put article up for AfD but doesn't seem to have worked. I was using Twinkle thanks. BigDunc (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No need sorted now. BigDunc (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Dunc. Sorry I missed this, I have been out of the wiki-loop recently. Glad it was resolved. Rockpock  e  t  18:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Down Under visit
Hi Rockpocket. Is this your first visit down under? Welcome, indeed. I've only been to Adelaide a handful of times, and my tastes when visiting new places are probably quite out of the ordinary (really good book shops; coffee houses; music venues, etc). It's known as the City of Churches, so if that's up your alley you have a multitude of options. The Adelaide Zoo is renowned. You're best advised to access an Adelaide tourist site for better ideas. The Barossa Valley and the southern winery region are great to visit, even if you're not a wino. On the way to Melbourne, you can visit the Blue Lake at Mt Gambier, although it's only blue during a certain part of the year and may not be blue when you're there. There are many good caves open to the public around south-eastern South Australia and western Victoria, but I haven't been speleologically inclined for decades now so I can't attest to their current status. The one near Naracoorte was excellent when I last visited it, back in the 70s. Be sure to take the coast road to Melbourne and experience the Great Ocean Road - I hope the weather is fine, because when the sky is clear blue, it's a simply breathtaking experience. The Twelve Apostles are quite a sight, as are similar formations along the way. Melbourne itself - obviously a lot to see and do, and it will depend on how much time you have on your hands. Rather than suggesting things at random, can you perhaps narrow down your areas of interest and tell me how much time you'll have. (We're heading off to Melbourne ourselves in a couple of hours for 2 nights, and my availability over the weekend will be limited, but I'll respond when and as I can.) --  JackofOz (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket. I hope your field trip is proceeding well. I've given this some thought, and it turns out I'm not quite the travel guide that I thought I was. But fwiw, here are some places you might find of interest:


 * State Library of Victoria (Swanston St, city)
 * Immigration Museum (Flinders St, city)
 * Greek section (Lonsdale St, city)
 * Chinatown, Melbourne (Little Bourke St, city)
 * Australian Centre for the Moving Image, at Federation Square (city)
 * Victoria Markets
 * Melbourne Museum (Carlton)
 * Royal Exhibition Building, the site of the opening of out first federal parliament and now a world heritage site
 * Lygon Street, Carlton (centre of the Italian community, and the best place for a great Melbourne coffee. Best to go at night, preferably on Friday or Saturday, to get the full sense of what the place is like when it's in full swing - but any time is good; I spent many mellow Sunday afternoons there.)
 * Brunswick St, Fitzroy (a street full of local colour and ethnic variety, + some great eateries and second-hand bookshops)
 * Jewish Museum (Caulfield, south of the city)

I'm sure I've forgotten a few must-sees. You can get a lot more detailed - and accurate - information from the tourist information pavilion at Federation Square.

Btw, I'm going to be in Melbourne between 25-27 April, and if this happens to coincide with your itinerary, I'd love to meet up and put a name to the face. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection at Vintagekits
Just letting you know I've fully protected User:Vintagekits for three days. Since the talk page in this case probably isn't an ideal location for discussion, I started a thread at Administrators' noticeboard. Will leave everybody I see as involved in the dispute the same message. Feel free to comment. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility - where is the protection?
Rock, I have tried, and succeeded, to remain civil for some time now. The quid pro quo I expected was that there would be some sanction of those who are uncivil towards me. Since I stopped using language that could remotely be characterized as uncivil I have noticed a complete lack of any of the Admins who hounded me when I was being allegedly "uncivil". Could I draw you attentions to User:Bastun and the sequence of exchanges that resulted in him slapping a threatening "warning" on my page? Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? You throw that h word around like its going out of fashion.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I came here and never referred to TU -this is a good example of exactly what I was talking about. Rock - I must be allowed defend myself if there is no Law and Order. Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I am getting rather cross - a third member of the club posted this:
 * You might as well criticise the Romans for spreading civilisation to similarly god-forsaken hellholes as Ireland was when the English - under orders from the Catholic Church - intervened. Oh well - you hate us, but at least you are largely civilised now. Our work is done (except in the north). TharkunColl (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Please take a look | here? Sarah777 has engaged in a personal attack there - [| diff]. I placed a warning on her page [| diff] - which she subsequently removed and placed on my own page - [| diff]. Meantime, despite the fact that there's an ongoing AfD, she's threatening to "speedy move" the page. (The personal attack she's claiming I made apparently refers to [| this edit], where I said to an anon IP editor "Repeating yourself ad infinitum isn't going to win you any arguments.") Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 23:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination) is where you'll find the personal attacks. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Still waiting on the diffs... Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 00:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can wait. They are rather easy to find. If Rock asks I'll isolate them but they are pretty obvious in the thread I've linked. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't link to a thread, you linked to a (rather long) page. I've looked and have seen no personal attacks on my part, to you or to an anon.  I've reported the diff where you accuse me of "POV ravings" - and as Administrator User:John has said, "all accusations of misconduct should always be accompanied with diffs or they may be ignored."  Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, so you are speaking on behalf of Rockpocket now? Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have archived that particular discussion. It was going nowhere and unilaterally "speedy moving" the article in the middle of an active and contentious Afd is unlikely to do anything but add the the general confusion. If the article is to be kept, then once the Afd is closed that discussion can be had on its talk page.

I'm not sure I can spot any personal attacks from Bastun, so a diff would be helpful to resolve that particular accusation. However, there has been some rather intemperate language from a number of parties, so please everyone just cool it. TharkunColl's comment is particularly incivil under the circumstances, and I will ask him or her to tone down the rhetoric. I suggest now that everyone has their say on what they would like to do with this article, you all step back and see what the rest of the community has to say. Rockpock e  t  01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the old days I'd have made some rather sarcastic comment about your eyesight Rock - but this is the new me!
 * Sarah777's spurious argument relates to an Arbcom ruling on the Great Irish Famine article, where she had been attempting to insert PoV claims of genocide by the British against the Irish. Ruling here. This obviously has no application to this case. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think that is a rather clear accusation of pov-pushing (a personal attack) and failure to WP:AGF. I've been warned for less by Admins. Sarah777 (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Object to the pointy proposal. Follow process and don't disrupt the article because of your own feelings on Arbcom or its decisions. There is an ongoing AfD, let that resolve. The article can't qualify for a speedy move anyway. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Another failure to WP:AGF; accusation of disruption (a personal attack). Sarah777 (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the "cultural divide" - am I correct to assume that "pov raving" (as a retort) is in some important way more offensive than "pov pushing" (as an initial provocation) - to the British mind? You see, over here, we'd accept that a response to an attack might just be a smidgeon stronger than the initial remark; but we'd certainly hold the instigator of the incivility almost entirely responsible for the exchange. Sarah777 (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The adjectives he uses relates to the content, not the contributor. "A spurious argument", "a pointy proposal", "PoV claims". These are not personal attacks. Yes, they do lack good faith, but that has been lacking from pretty much everyone in the discussion. As you latterly noticed, you make similar criticisms yourself: "Crassest example of political and cultural bias", "Your pov ravings." I'm not buying the he said it first so he is more to blame argument, Sarah. And that certainly ain't a Irish/British thing. Please, just disengage and leave the community to reach a conclusion. Rockpock e  t  02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You need buy nothing. He did say it first; and the very fact that you seem oblivious to the fact these things work like a chain reaction makes me wonder how you can possibly share Bastun's perspective on the exchange without some, maybe subconscious conditioning (culture for example) at work. There are some "crossovers" here as in all areas of dispute - but on a vast array of related topics 80% of editors line up on two sides in a way that is totally correlated to Nationality. Things like the name "British Isles" have everything to do with the British/Irish divide. To hold otherwise is as silly as claiming that one's views on the merits of Kosovan independence is unrelated to whether you are Albanian or Serb. Sarah777 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I doesn't matter who said what first in this particular exchange, because this clearly isn't the first time you have crossed swords. He did it first isn't a credible justification on Wikipedia, period. If someone is incivil to you, you don't have to respond in kind and doing so does your case no favors whatsoever.

When I said it is not a British/Irish thing, I meant that its not just the British that consider an incivil retort to be unjustified as a response to prior incivil comment. I know, because I'm neither British nor Irish, and because the ethic of reciprocity is a global concept. I am well aware of how much the Irish/British divide pervades these discussions. But there is a whole world outside those islands. To people in that world, arguments over the name of an island because of some historical wrong-doings is, quite frankly, lame. If 80% of British/Irish editors are arguing from an ideological position influenced by subconscious conditioning, then perhaps we should ignore all of you and listen to those who really couldn't care less whether a 150 yr old famine should be described as genocide or not. I don't share Bastun's perspective, I don't share your perspective. Like 99% of the rest of Wikipedia, I don't give a fuck. All I want to do is stop otherwise good editors, and I'm sure good people, from getting themselves blocked over something so utterly parochial. Rockpock e  t  03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Parochial" being the operative word. Sarah seems to assume I'm British, when in fact I'm Irish born and bred.  And ironically had already voted delete on the AfD. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 10:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the least parochial - merely the local manifestation of Wiki Anglo-bias. But this is the area I edit in. Who is the "we" who should maybe ignore all of us Rock? You and who? I'm betting rather near enough 99% of EN:Wiki editors take no part in this. Maybe you should all ignore us and leave this to Irish editors to sort out. Sounds like a good idea actually. As for the ethic of reciprocity being global - clearly not its interpretation. Retorting to incivility is reciprocity. It is also clear that you have a parish; the Anglo-American cultural parish. Perhaps you are arguing from an ideological position influenced by subconscious conditioning? And you claim vindication from the fact that 99% of your fellow parishioners are similarly conditioned! There is a big (and expanding) world outside the Anglo-American mainstream orthodoxy Rock. Look out the window. Observe. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And re "who was uncivil first (Bastun)" - my point was that is some Admin had jumped in with the same alacrity (not just you btw) as they habitually do when I respond in kind then the response would not occur. Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "We" the community, who are not personally invested in promoting either side of the divide, but would rather like the encyclopaedia to be free to the perpetual bickering by those who are. You don't know what my "parish" is, Sarah and it is a logical fallacy to presume that because someone doesn't agree with you, they are biased. Your claim is a classic ad hominem tu quoque. If you wish to know about my "parish" then ask (privately) and I will tell you. But don't assign me to a position just because that suits your own argument.


 * And please, spare me the lecture me on the world outside this orthodoxy you are upset with. I'm really not interested, as I have more important things to do. Next week I am traveling to a remote country whose people are being squeezed under the rule of a military junta, to do some research. It wasn't easy getting the necessary permits, but even juntas assess individuals on their merits. So while you are fighting the injustice in the world one wiki article at a time, spare a thought for the people who are actually there in person, observing, first hand. When I get back, I may have more time to listen to how I am being ideologically conditioned by Uncle Sam (the same Uncle Sam, incidentally, who warns his citizens against traveling to said country). Rockpock  e  t  23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you enjoy your trip to Northern Ireland ;) One Night In Hackney  303  23:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dammit, Hackney!! Keyboard again :) :) - A l is o n  ❤ 23:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I study aggression, Hack. Where would I find angry people there? Rockpock  e  t  23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is any DUP meeting, judging by recent events... Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 23:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

spare me the lecture me on the world outside - Rock, what chutzpah. WP:KETTLE if ever there was a case. Sarah777 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Chutzpah? Can't you see that would be extremely offensive to my cultural perspective as a Muslim? I jest, of course.... Or do I?
 * Look this isn't going anywhere. You brought this to my attention and I'm sorry if my response wasn't what you were expecting or hoping for. But I call it as I see it. I can't protect you from incivility, anymore that I can protect myself from incivility. If people attack you, then don't respond in kind and let me know and I'll ask them to stop. If you are going to give as good as you get and then ask for assistance, then you will get the same response from me.
 * That is how it is going to be. I've always tried to be reasonable and helpful and have defended you on a number of occasions, as far as I am aware have never blocked you or supported admin action against you, but if you think you would prefer to request assistance from another admin, by all means ask them instead. But I don't think you are going to find an enlightened admin that sees Wikipedia they way you do. That may be because we are all brainwashed Anglophiles, or it may be because your perspective is unique to you. Either way, I don't you are going to have too much admin support in future situations like that which led to this discussion. Now, lets move on from this. Rockpock  e  t  00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal testing
Hi there, good to see you again. Thanks for all your work on this article, I'm glad we eventually sorted out the text to a stable version that could pass GA. I appreciate all your help with this very much indeed. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, Tim. I only ever tinker here and there and offer an odd comment now and again. You and SV are the real architects of that page and, reading it through again today, it is pretty damn good considering its such a controversial subject. So well done to you. Rockpock  e  t  17:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility?
Back again - 'cos I'm rather angry to be honest. In my cultural perspective you just wrote: "there is a whole world outside Judaism. To people in that world, arguments over the name of some historical wrong-doings is, quite frankly, lame. If 80% of Israeli/Arab editors are arguing from an ideological position influenced by subconscious conditioning, then perhaps we should ignore all of you and listen to those who really couldn't care less whether some 60 yr old killings should be described as a "Holocaust" or not." That is pretty uncivil. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't write in your "culture perspective", Sarah. Thats what you just wrote, not me.
 * Look, Wikipedia is not a battleground, so if Israeli/Arab editors can't discuss on an encyclopaedia in a polite, constructive and politically neutral way then I would make the same suggestion. If they can, then there is no problem. To contribute here is a privilege, not a right. If any editor is unable to conduct themselves in a acceptable manner, then we should ignore them.

Rockpock e  t  23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, my perspective. Which IMHO is closer to a Global one that the dominant parochial EN:Wiki one. If Wiki wants to be some cyber version of some retired colonial Generals Club - then maybe they should say that on the tin? I was intrigued recently when reading an essay I was referred to me by some "liberal" Admin - about the dire threat of "nationalism" to Wiki's self-imagined universal liberal perspective. The examples given, when stripped of the double-speak, were of a rising number of English-speaking Indian editors attacking standard British/Anglo-American terminology, assumptions, standards, "verifiability" rules and nearly everything else. A different paradigm. Made me laugh. What it really was? - the cry of a British Nationalist conditioned by the Anglo-American cultural assumptions finding his constructs and mythology challenged. Fortunately for EN:Wiki editors from India they will soon dwarf their opponents numerically. Other victims of the (currently) dominant culture will have to find other ways forward. Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your perspective is not going to do much good in bringing about change when it is banned from being expressed. Unlike in the real world, change doesn't come through the barrel of a gun around here. The more you, personally, are seen as an angry nationalist voice the more likely you are to be provoked. Other editors know how to push your buttons and are beginning to do so. So don't give them the buttons to push. Rockpock  e  t  01:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems angry British nationalists don't bother the Wiki-Admins atall atall! I thought it was your job to watch the button-pushers? My perspective will hardly be banned - you may as well try turning back the tide with the proverbial fork! And who is trying to bring change "through the barrel of a gun"?! I am using reasoned argument that is simply being bludgeoned by force of numbers. After all, everything on Wiki is decided by vote, not the rule of law, despite what the Wiki priesthood keep saying. (Note I never have to link some Wiki-essay to support my arguments). Sarah777 (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When I see poor behaviour from anyone I will act, but contrary to popular belief, I'm not going to go looking for it. I don't see one voice in support of your argument to move the article. Not one. Have you ever considered that perhaps the reason the force of numbers oppose you is because your reasoning is flawed, rather than because you are right and everyone is part of some Anglo-American conspiracy? I'm absolutely serious, its great to have confidence in yourself and promote your opinion robustly, but you must also appreciate that you could be off mark and be willing to accept that without resorting to accusations of bias.  Rockpock  e  t  02:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's Clio?
You beat me to the question by a fraction of a minute. I looked at the IP's contributtions and wondered in what way Clio might have wished to assist. Do you ever feel as if you are operating a nursery school for the socially disadvantaged, or trying to herd cats? ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It does feel like that sometimes. I honestly wonder whether, for some people, the purpose of asking questions like that is to see their typing on the page in front of them, rather than actually to acquire information. Or perhaps it simply a consequence of our service culture - so many things are presented to us in the most accessible form, placed right in front of our noses, that even the most cursory of examinations is too much effort. Wasn't like that back in my day, we actually had to visit a *shock* library to find information. Rockpock  e  t  21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pheromones
About your edit, I'm almost positive they have. Don't put something like this without citations.Thanks Limonns (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Rockpock e  t  18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to argue with you. Agree to disagree? Limonns (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that. Thanks for condoning me to disagree...Limonns (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * lol sorry if you took it that way. It was only sarcasm. Thanks though Limonns (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was acknowledging that you said you "understood" and didn't re-revert, not acknowledging permission to allow you to disagree. Since you feel "amost positive" that I am incorrect, incidentally, perhaps you could add back the material and provide the reliable sources that make you so sure. Rockpock  e  t  18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Down Under
Are you packed yet? Don't forget the snake-bite kit. The one thing nobody tells you about are the flies. Take three steps outside an urban area and you will be swarmed by them. They go up your nose, into your ears and get caught between your eyes and your glasses, desperate for moisture. At least they don't bite! Write when you get work. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not even started. I am going to be at work all weekend, trying to finish writing a manuscript before I leave (incidentally, it briefly addresses the horse pheromones we discussed last December. Your query can now be better addressed since the horse genome has been sequenced recently. Since this is Wikipedia, I will wait until it is published and becomes a reliable source before giving you the answer ;)
 * As is usual with me, I expect to be packing in the early hours of Tuesday morning, just a few hours before I leave. I do have my mosquito net for sleeping under, but I fully expect to get eaten alive by various bugs during the day. But you have to suffer for your science, you know. Rockpock  e  t  19:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One sleeps under a solid ceiling, with air-conditioning, blackout curtains, hot-and-cold running maids and daily linen service. Mosquito nets are for decorating purposes only; if you really need them, you weren't meant to be there. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly the The Pew Charitable Trusts do not take such a civilized view when funding research trips. Apparently one of the most exclusive resorts in the world is situated on a nearby island (the location of Britney Spears' honeymoon, I'm told), but it might as well be on the other side of the world, given that we will be living Survivor-style, but without the cash prize at the end. Still I'm not complaining, I can think of worse things to do than spend a few weeks on an isolated Pacific island, even with a lack of household luxuries. I think experiencing that sort of back-to-nature isolation will be rather healthy and it would sure as hell beat a trip to Alaska in the winter! Rockpock  e  t  21:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Yasawa Islands-how terribly exciting! The most unusual place I ever visited was North Korea; not, I assure you an experience I would ever care to repeat!  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sail safely and bring home pretty pictures of rare species. Will you be visiting Nanuya Levu? So far, I hadn't pictured you with blond curls... ---Sluzzelin talk  00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. Thats me on the poster! I will actually be calling at the neighboring island, Nanuya Lailai, when I first arrive tomorrow, before I head off to some of the small islands. I think Nanuya Levu is privately owned, so off-limits to us non celebrities. As I predicted, its currently 2am locally and I have just finished my paperwork. Now to pack... Rockpock  e  t  08:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Eco-terrorism
Hey, I don't know if you're interested, but this cat has been getting thrown in pretty willy-nilly, and I have almost no time to try to get cites to justify it or anything like that. Maybe you wanna take it on? Murderbike (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I did notice one editor going to town on a few articles on my watch-list, but most of them are appropriate since the individuals were convicted under terror legislation. Normally I would be happy to take this on, but I'm disappearing off to a deserted island (literally, see the section above) imminently and will be entirely off the wiki-grid for a month. If it is still a problem when I get back, I'll see what I can do, but otherwise it might be worth trying to drum up some attention at WP:WPAR. Rockpock  e  t  23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)