User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 32

Request for uninvolved admin re. Ireland Manual of Style
Would you be willing to intervene in a dispute about the application of the manual of style for Ireland-related topics, which states that, where confusion may arise, Republic of Ireland should be used rather than Ireland? I raised the application of the guideline in relation to the following four articles at the project talk page - RTE Two, League of Ireland, League of Ireland Premier Division, League of Ireland First Division.

We resolved RTE Two, but, while a majority of editors is in favour of using "Republic of Ireland" in the three football articles, User:O Fenian appears determined not to allow it, and has reverted changes to the articles.-+

The argument for using Republic of Ireland is that confusion may arise because:
 * the articles say it is the national league of Ireland
 * the league is the national league, however, not of the whole of Ireland, but only of the Republic
 * in Ireland, "national" can refer both to Ireland or to the Republic
 * in sport, the whole island is often the "national" team or league - e.g. rugby, cricket, GAA
 * therefore "national league of Ireland" is likely to be understood as meaning the national league of the whole island
 * hence IMOS says use "Republic of Ireland" to avoid confusion.

It is also the case that, in football, "Republic of Ireland", and not "Ireland", is the recognised name of the 26-county jurisdiction. Here is an example from the FIFA web site, which refers to the "national league" of the "Republic of Ireland":.

The argument against using Republic of Ireland, if I understand it, is simply an assertion that confusion will not arise. Mooretwin (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented there. Rockpock  e  t  11:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mooretwin (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a week or so for others to comment, and if there are no objections you can go ahead and make the changes. Rockpock  e  t  16:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

deletion of post on my talkpage...
confused...I didn't put the comment there or encourage the user to do so. Don't want to get blocked again.

But I'm pretty sure that by deleting something off my page is a breach of some rule is it not?Afterlife10 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware you didn't place the comment there, which is why I warned the editor who did. I was just preemptively encouraging you not to replace it, as that would make you responsible and then you might get into trouble. And, no, it is not a breach of any rule to remove personal attacks. That post served no constructive purpose to the encyclopaedia. Rockpock  e  t  23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.Afterlife10 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It did serve some purpose, actually, in that it helped me let off steam :) 86.178.52.148 (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not constructive for the encyclopaedia: Wikipedia is not therapy. Rockpock  e  t  12:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand your point. For philisophical reasons I never promise anything about future events, but I can promise you that at the moment I have no intention of repeating the stunt. Thanks for your patient and cool headed approach - I'm not certain how to award you a barnstar, so please accept this asterix: "*" :) 86.178.52.148 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks, and no hard feelings ;) Rockpock  e  t  19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Request
The following editor User:MFIreland is intent on making undiscussed changes to Caubeen. I have already informed him and otehr editors to stop editing the article and to actually take it to the articles talk page. But nope MFIrlenad just keeps re-adding it.

Already they have added it at least 8 times (all listed on MFIreland's talk page) which means they have burst way past the 3RR and i request some sort of action be taken. I also gave myself a 3RR warning as i breeched it. Mabuska (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly made discussion on this article, see-User talk:Lloydelliot10, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. All my edits have references from reliable sources.-- MFIreland  • Talk  00:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * MFIreland i've already told you those "discussions" involved only one part of your edits and only towards one editor in places away from the article, and that you have been reverted by 3 or 4 different editors but went ahead and readded the same changes about 8 times regardless! Sourced or not (of which other parts weren't or where badly sourced), there was no agreement for your alterations to the article in any "discussion" i've seen. You were edit-warring and massively breeched 3RR. Mabuska (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring is not the answer, and you were (both) lucky you were not blocked under WP:3RR. Its already been dealt with by another admin protecting the page, so to take further action new would be punitive, not preventative. I would strongly urge you to go to the talk page as soon as you revert (or are reverted) once and come to some agreement before editing the article again with the same content. A repeat of the warring on that page, or any other, will likely result in a block. Rockpock  e  t  20:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're smokin'
That little quip elsewhere gave me the best giggle I've had all week. RashersTierney (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ;-) Rockpock  e  t  23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

RTE
Would you be willing to have a go at mediating a solution here? It's a similar issue as with League of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The analogy between both cases is not accepted by a number of contributors. An exception from usual IMOS has not been contested at League of Ireland ; now it seems that 'derogation' is being presented as a precedent for a re-evaluation of IMOS as applied generally. This is not acceptable, nor an issue requiring mediation. RashersTierney (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ?? Mooretwin (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than to close the proposal for change as 'no consensus', I don't see what 'mediation' is required. RashersTierney (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think mediation is required, but I'm happy to judge whether a consensus has formed from the discussion, if no-one objects. Rockpock  e  t  23:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to preempt. Happy to leave it to your judgment. RashersTierney (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe "mediate" was the wrong word. Mooretwin (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RP, are you able to look at this? Mooretwin (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi RP, if you (understandably) lack the time or inclination to look at this, should I bring to the attention of another admin? Mooretwin (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mooretwin. Sorry about the lack of response, I've been rather busy last week. I have some time today and will look at it a little later. Rockpock  e  t  15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. Mooretwin (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion on the page. I have to agree with RashersTierney, that there is not currently a consensus for your suggestion. I would note that this is not an endorsement as the intro as it stands, though, as there is as much support for your edit as there is against. I think there should be a third way here — you are all reasonable people, so go find it! Rockpock e  t  21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hymenolepis microstoma
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

CFTR disambiguation
Hi,

When I search for CFTR I get to a disambiguation page with the CFTR gene which gets about 300 hits per day and the CFTR (AM) radio station about 30 hits per day. It would seem sensible to me to change the CFTR page to a redirect to the Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator article and use the about template to link to the radio station CFTR (AM). Does that sounds reasonable? Alexbateman (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Endorse, from a random passerby. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * + one - there shouldn't be a dab page when there are only two possible meanings. SmartSE (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

✅. I've redirected it to Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator and added a hatnote for the radio station. Rockpock e  t  20:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

James Clark (physician)
Please would you move this to Sir James Clark, 1st Baronet over redirect. I can't do it. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kitty. Sorry for the delay in responding, I was on vacation in Central America. I was about to do this, before I began to wonder whether we typically use titles such as "Sir" as article names for individuals. Do you know what the MoS says about this? Rockpock  e  t  11:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Rockpocket,

I'm just showing how to talk to other users. Alexbateman (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind message, Dr Alexbateman. Rockpock  e  t  10:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Publication fees and peer review standards
Darren, I've undone your removal of the section I inserted on concerns about peer review standards in the PLoS ONE article. I don't intend to engage in an editing war, so if this series of attempts to suppress references to Richard Poynder's critique continues, I wash my hands of it. I think you are mistaken to describe this as "proscription" vs. "description." There is plenty of evidence for the emergence of "junk OA journals" with low or no refereeing standards, clearly interested only in making money from what they think is the fast new market of pay-ro-publish OA. Richard Poynder is the investigative journalist who has been examining and looking into these cases. PLoS ONE is certainly not one of these junk OA journals, and PLoS is not one of these fly-by-night OA publishers (nor does Richard say it is). But questions have been raised about PLoS ONE's refereeing standards, and Richard Poynder has written about them. I don't think the problem (either with PLoS's refereeing standards or with the growth of junk OA journals) is as big as Richard sees it, and, as I describe in my own D-Lib article, there are simple ways to protect refereeing standards from the potential conflict-of-interest of pay-to-publish; but I think you are making a great mistake (and perhaps deceiving yourself) if you try to prevent these concerns from being aired openly in Wikipedia on the grounds that they are "proscriptive" rather than "descriptive." They are definitely descriptive, substantive, evidence-based and relevant. The reference to Poynder's critique has already been suppressed -- see User talk:Crusio -- on the grounds that it is merely a blog entry (whereas Poynder is a respected veteran journalist who has deliberately switched to blogging rather than magazines because of both declining standards and declining revenues in the journalist world -- while other blog references in the same PLoS ONE entry [Heather Morrison's, reference 2] were not called into question, perhaps because they were eulogious rather than critical...). Now you are suppressing it on the grounds that it is "proscriptive" rather than "descriptive." Could this resourceful persistence in finding reasons to suppress reference to Poynder's critique be because it is critical of OA, and of PLoS's refereeing standards? If so, such selectivity is unworthy of OA advocates. I hope you will relax and be more open-minded about criticisms of OA. It can take the heat, and prevail in the end anyway. And the vigilance of independent investigative journalists like Richard Poynder is only a help. (By the way, Peter Suber has just written in email "I second your well-worded endorsement of Richard's work (in the statement dated 11:37, 27 March 2011 UTC) and would be happy for anyone to know it." Stevan Harnad 12:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)
 * I've replied on your talk page. Rockpock  e  t  20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Computational Biology
Hi,

Thanks for signing up to WikiProject Computational Biology. There is a growing list of tasks that you can help out with if you have a few free moments. See the discussion page. Alexbateman (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Lerner.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lerner.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
And thank you for your help!Metkip (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

MGP
Hi Rockpocket,is there a kind of minimum template that could apply to all MPG gene entries?

I find quite difficult to create entries without knowing much, but at least if there was a template, I could create pages for you ;-) Manuelcorpas (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names
There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have offered my thoughts on the page. Rockpock  e  t  21:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of EUCOMM


The article EUCOMM has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Two references: one is by project members and the other does not mention this project. Hence: no independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How's it going?
I noticed you creating a few articles in userspace recently. Good to see you getting back into it. How's life with you? --John (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * John, good to hear from you. I'm well, and - as you noticed - working on a big project in userspace. The goal is to enhance the Gene Wiki project with standardized functional annotation in animal models. To add the the challange, we are trying to co-ordinate the data release on WP with the publication of the paper. You well? Rockpock  e  t  12:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help
Just wanted to say thanks for all the help with the MRC workshop in Cambridge - have had nothing but 100% positive feedback so far and really appreciate you and your colleagues taking the time out to come along and get us on the road to being worthy Wikipedians :) I don't really understand this Barnstar lark but hopefully one will appear below! --Jukesie (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, thankyouverymuch. Rockpock  e  t  15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad (but not surprised) to hear this went well. Congratulations! MartinPoulter (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * MYL12B (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Light chain


 * SEC24A (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link to Vesicle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)