User talk:Rocksanddirt/Archives/2008/March

As I was saying to Lawrence...
If arbcom doesn't directly address the issue of the MM/SH etc socking, then they just haven't addressed it, and the community is free to do so. It would be a different thing if one of the proposed findings was MM=SH, and the arbcom voted it down. But there is no such finding - so thus no contradiction if the community decides to address that issue by itself. Perhaps it is better left that way, to be honest - given the RfC, the community's position seems pretty clear. Risker (talk) 07:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * except if one of them (who disagree's with the community) want's to derail it. I don't know if one would, but it is a real concern since they didn't even put it up, and some have expressed some fairly strong opinions on the matter (regardless of evidence).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. At the same time, there are some external implications to certain findings. We have a sometimes startling sense of insularity here in the Wikipedia community that does not take into account the rest of the world in which we operate. Unless something very unexpected happens, we will not see any of the arbs putting forth such a finding - and not necessarily because of what has or might happen on Wikipedia. On the other hand...it seems Arbcom is hoping *someone* with expertise in stock market related issues will clean up these articles so they are suitable for our reading public. Do we have a wikiproject focused on that issue? Risker (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand some of the off site sensitivities, and while they are important to be mindful of, if we let offsite actions prevent us from protecting the community of editors and the encyclopedic content...then it's all a vanity? I think those can be worked around.  I'm pretty sure there are some finanncial/stockmarket type projects.  Also I think Relata Refero was going to do some sandbox/offsite work on naked short selling (as he/she knew of some reliable sources that should be in the article).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That will be good - I hope that RR won't be included in the "involved editor" category. Well, it turns out we have a wikiproject for business and economics, so once the case is over it might be an appropriate group to go to for article cleanup. In the interim - check your mail.  Risker (talk) 08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a good weekend too, keep up your self-censoring. Pretty impressed with the editors involved, to be honest, though if Arbcom was going to do something completely different, it might well have been helpful for FT2's summary to be the kick-off instead.  One of the reasons I've been holding back, relatively speaking, is that it was 3 of the 5 new guys who seemed to take charge of the decision page, so I kind of wondered if there was something else afoot.  Well, it has made for interesting reading.  Risker (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
I think I might just frame that edit summary for posterity, to remember that it happened at least once. :-) Risker (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

a note from Kelsey Crookshanks
Thanks you Rocksanddirt for your kind and spirited comments! Please note that I posted a correction, as Mantan did have a point. From now on whenever I have to hold my tail between my legs I shall sign off like this, --Kelsey Crookshanks 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref tags
I have noticed that you added the reference tag to The Mandrake (band) again. Please tell me how that still applys. There are many references in the text, and they point to both first party sources and third party sources. (note the All music source/ref) Undeath (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You forgot about the SSMT source. That's not a buy our cd site. It's a review. Undeath (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Moo
Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) which is why I am sending these messages to random people.

These listed Wikipages Need your help!

Whoever knows when Alf Schofield died please put in on the Alf Schofield page, that would really help.

Look at the Talk:Kangaroo (meat) page regarding my post- Kangaroo Species- that would really help.

Look at Talk:Katharine McPhee regarding her spouse under Relationships by Keane Rox.

For April 2007 Nor'easter well, I put in a fact and referenced it and now I don't know how to complete the reference. Click the blue 2 reference and you'll know what I mean. Then click the [2] at the top of the April 2007 Nor'easter article and complete the reference.

Spread the word for these Wikipages in need! That is all.

--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table
Could you address Nomoskedasticity's RfC on this article's talk page? PigeonPiece found a third quality secondary source (Times Higher Education Supplement 1993; full cite on ORT talk page), but is now resisting Nomoskedasticity's proposed use of it, while not proposing anything him/herself. I respect your opinion; you have been very helpful in moving this article forward.

Also, can I renew my request to have the "sources or references" tag removed from the "Company History and Officers" section, since you said the use of primary sources there was valid?

Thanks in advance on both of these.Academic38 (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Disillusioned?
You said "to the point that based on JzG's response to this effort, I'm likely done with en.wikipedia for the time being" - it is relatively easy to deal with people like JzG if you have a thick skin. Sure, he has a bad effect on new editors, but please don't let this affect you as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)