User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello Rockpocket/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Animal Testing - Please sign your posts

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.-localzuk 21:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Rockpocket 21:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rock, haven't seen any of your excellent edits on Animal Testing lately. I have a theory that you and Slim have run away together. ;-) Ermintrude 15:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha. I'm afraid i've been a bit snowed under at work and thus have been limited to small edits here and there, Ermintrude. Hopefully i'll find some time to tackle Animal testing again soon. Did you see the edit from "Sir" Colin Blakemore himself? Very amusing, and the IP resolves to MRC head office, so i presume its genuine. Rockpocket 02:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! Though as it has been a point of contention that he has not been given an honour of any sort, perhaps also unfortunate. I like that he corrected the spelling of focused also... Scottkeir 18:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Morpholinos

Regarding your message:

Good advertising for Morpholinos there! ;-) Rockpocket 02:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Knockdown and splice blocking by Morpholino antisense is a standard method in developmental biology; the link is useful to someone interested in researching zebrafish techniques. I am concerned about keeping the Morpholino page and links accurate, so please let me know if you find any problems. I'm trying to avoid posting an ad, but I do want to provide information.

Thanks,

 - Jon

heya

Hi rocketpocket, yup like I said It was my first attempt at an edit. I consider my self a radical social movement historian so I plan on alot more. However my copyedit skills are lacking. The ARM article does need some referencing however I'm studying up on exactly what can be used. I will be placing justifications and edits on disscuss from now on.Xanax 00:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have you on board and look forward to working with you - many 'radical' subjects tend to draw radical editors, so it will be most welcome to have an editor with an academic interest involved. Rockpocket 01:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Draize Test

Hi, I'd be grateful for your views and contributions to the discission at Draize test. At the moment it looks like a two way contest and SV seems to be ignoring the new sources I quote in the discussion. MedicalScientist 18:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hi RP, it's a good question. The basic issue is one of consent. We don't use humans who can't give consent (babies, people with serious mental illness) to test medicines on behalf of other human beings, so there are no moral grounds for using animals who can't give consent to test medicines on behalf of other animals. That would leave veterinarian medicines being tested using non-animal testing methods or human volunteers, and if vivisectionists argue that testing a human medicine on a dog is useful, then testing a dog medicine on a human should be similarly useful.

But I feel that this is the kind of question vivisectionists throw into the pot in order to confound. The best answer is to wait until the only substances still being tested on animals are those used by vets, and then we can address that final, pesky question.

While on the subject, there's a film available that was taken inside a lab testing Iams, a high-protein dog food. Laboratory dogs fed on Iams had chunks cut out of their thighs, presumably to check muscle volume, then were left to recover on the floor, probably in great pain. Yet dog owners use the product because they care about dogs. Go figure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here it is in case you have any interest. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Pro-test

Thank-you for your thank-you. I looked at the contentious line yesterday and it had ceased to make grammatical sense. So I cut out half of it, which can often work wonders. Slim hasn't been back to the page, so I hope she finds things agreeable. As for micro debates, I guess its an inevitable part of the process. Cheers, Marskell 09:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to express thanks & admiration for the job you've been doing on the Pro-Test page. --Dcfleck 01:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too. I admire your tenacity and patience. I think you are injecting a much needed dose of rationality and reality. Sometimes slavish adherence to the ideal of NPOV seems more like donning blinkers to exclude common sense. Neutrality does not equal reality. MedicalScientist 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks. But I've really done very little, I don't have your persistence. I just took the plunge in Animal Testing though and tried to re-rationalise the section on types of test - I had pointed out in talk how it didn't make sense any more. No-one objected to my point then, but no-doubt someone will revert! MedicalScientist 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your message

I don't have the faintest idea what you're on about. Feel like giving me a clue? Grace Note 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't precisely know why you want to personalise a discussion, Rockpocket, except that we clearly have different POVs. Please don't though. It's frustrating for everything to be a war. Grace Note 08:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Break

Don't take a break, please. It's my fault for continuing to respond. I thought we were bantering in a sort of playfully aggressive way. I apologize if it went over the line for you! Your edits to Rod Coronado were really good, and I was about to drop you a note saying so. I'll do the disambig for you, but please stay. I'll become a new, gentler SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created the disambig page at Operation Backfire, and I've called yours Operation Backfire (FBI), but feel free to change that. Alternatively, you could call yours Operation Backfire, and we could direct people on that page to Operation Backfire (WWII). It depends on how notable/important the FBI one is compared to the WWII one. I'll leave it up to you, so if you would prefer the latter, let me know and I'll fiddle a bit more to free up the title from the disambig page. If the former, you're free to start your page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Thank you, Rockpocket. I also like what you've done with Operation Backfire (FBI). I took a look at the sourcing issues you mentioned earlier and I agree they're problematic, so I made that snitches link and sentence invisible, and I've deleted a few of the worst sources from the other articles too. You can try to put Jacob Ferguson up for deletion if you like, and I would support you, but if there are more mainstream sources out there who mention him, the vote will likely go against deletion (you need around 65 per cent in favor of deletion, and that can be hard to get). I've asked for another opinion, and I'll let you know when I hear back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The editor I checked with agrees with you that this person is probably not notable enough. The sources, apart from the Rocky Mountain News, are mostly blogs or alternative media websites, and they seem to contradict each other, some saying he was named in court, others saying he wasn't. If you want to go ahead and propose it for deletion, I'll support you. Alternatively, we could ask Dumpster if he agrees that it should be deleted and, if he does, we could delete it ourselves. Instructions for nominating a page for AfD are at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done on getting his agreement. Only admins can delete, so I'll go ahead and do it. We're allowed to speedy delete (i.e. not go through AfD) so long as everyone who has edited the page agrees. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ape-pose-ing votes

Having seen your name pop up again on my watchlist I thought I'd vicariously apoligize for you getting caught in Uther's striking through sockpuppets on Ape. I was actually glad you voted and I'm fairly convinced the page is getting spammed by a few sockpuppet accounts. Not to speak for him, but Uther does a lot of quick work on a watchlist that includes, I'd guess, every animal page we have. I pointed out what I thought was the problem but failed to note that I knew your vote was legitimate. Thought I'd make it as clear as I could. Cheers, Marskell 00:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

*laughs* No, not every animal page, but a significant number. Mostly, though, just the primates and cephalopods, although now that I have MSW3.... - UtherSRG (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-psychiatry

Ye Gods, what a swamp. I always hesitate to get involved in things like this, because it's somewhat outside the areas in which I feel knowledgeable, but I share your misgivings about the article. Probably the best thing to do in the short term is to get the bright light of publicity onto the page, so that we can (hopefully) attract a wider, calmer, & better informed set of editors to take a look at it. I'll add some cleanup tags to the article and see what happens. (And I love how Cesar Tort managed to work the Nazis in within 2 paragraphs in their response to you.)

In my experience (which isn't all that great, really) the best thing to do in a case like this is to be cautious, incremental, unfailingly polite, and relentless. So far (n = 1) it's worked. --Dcfleck 13:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. -- Ok, I've mentioned the page on WP:PNA and WP:MED. Just fyi, it may have been a tactical error to mention that you were going to ask an admin to look at the page -- it's clear that at least one of the editors sees himself as an Embattled Martyr for Truth, and your comment will probably make him dig in more. Better if the admins just happen to show up one day. --Dcfleck 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket, just saw you message on my talkpage after mine to you on the antipsychiatry talk page. Thanks very much for your message, it is very encouraging and reassuring, and I can completely understand your concerns, and I'm sure that with a combined effort (that would be a lot of work for you to go through every tag!) we will get there. Franzio 09:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this article in more depth, I now remember why I stay away from this sort of problem. It's just such a mess -- it needs a radical overhaul to become a decent article, rather than the current dumping ground of miscellaneous anti-psychiatric rants. I'll look at this some more, but I don't even know where to start with something like this. If you can fix it, you're a more worthy Wikipedian than I. :) --Dcfleck 13:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you start by working with those who were already trying to improve it and who know the area, rather than ignoring or hindering them...and avoiding making fairly offensive remarks about others who are involved Franzio 10:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

César Tort writes: I am very sorry for all the mess I did a few days ago when I mistook you for a censor and zealous bio-psychiatrist. As you may now have surmised, I like psychiatrists, but only those working in the trauma model. If you or Dcfleck could take a look at my first referent of the antipsychiatry section in the main Psychiatry article, that “Some professionals in the mental health field claim that in psychiatry there are no known biological markers for the purported DSM disorders [2]”, you will see that I am not just another rant. (See the genetics reference at the end of the referent, especially Joseph’s "The gene illusion: genetic research in psychiatry and psychology under the microscope", 2003). I was very emotional days ago because a loved one was destroyed by Mexican psychiatrists, and I happen to have debated to some psychiatrists who vehemently advocate lobotomy... But now that I know better you will see I will stay very cool. Sorry again and I hope I may be of some help to edit the long-winded article César Tort 17 March 2006

César, i'm sorry to hear of your loved one and, of course, understand that one's emotions can get the better of us at times, and that can have an effect on judgement. I believe having individuals like you contributing, who obviously have a keen interest in the field, is very important for the development of the article. However, its incredibly difficult for advocates to be truly impartial,not matter how much they try to be. So its also important to have people who have no major interest in the subject to work to make the article as fair, neutral and impartial as possible (that would be me!). I have no great love for psychiatry and i'm naturally skeptical of any movement that is defined as "anti-anything", feeling its ultimately counter-productive to globally criticise a discipline which pragmatically attempts to tackle a incredibly complex field, even though i agree there is plenty wrong with it. For the record, i fall somewhere in between the two extremes. That probably means we are going to disagree on quite a lot in the editing of the article, but as long as the assumption of good faith is maintained, i'm sure we can work it through. Rockpocket 07:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you start by working with those who were already trying to improve it and who know the area, rather than ignoring or hindering them...and avoiding making fairly offensive remarks about others who are involved Franzio 10:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Was this referring to me? I hope not. Again, i apologise for any personal offense i may have caused you with my latest edits. However, i believe every edit i made was based on policy, or made in its spirit. I do understand it can be frustrating having others edit what you spent valuable time creating, but do remember that you agreed to allow others to modify your work here. So let them. I assume good faith with each of you edits - even when i disagree with them - and would appreciate if you could reciprocate. I actually think the sum of our editing over the last 24hrs has improved that section significantly. You, i think, indicated on the talk page that you believe the improvement was your contribution and mine was detrimental to that. That is your perogative, of course. Others may be more gracious towards my effort and i, personally, think we both made improvements ;), but the end result is that the article is better - and will continue to improve as we refine it together. I hope you can appreciate that and we can move on without the acrimony. Rockpocket 07:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It was not referring to you, Rockpocket. Please paste it onto Dcfleck's talk page if you wish, who as you can see above was describing those already involved with this page as ill-informed martyrs.

My problem which arose since your last comments that I had found reassuring, is that you had said you were not going to start culling stuff, and then started doing so with an hour's warning. Please don't feel that you need to apologise if you stand by your edits. I think what's bugging me is that you don't seem to reply to or participate in suggestions and discussions already started by those already working on the page, and to existing attempts to improve the page, but seem to just take your own line as an admin and expect others to follow. I just think it creates more work than is necessary and doesn't feel as collaborative. And I do worry if you feel the whole anti-psychiatry thing is probably just 'counter-productive' and just about criticising attempts to tackle things. There are a lot of different, complex, subtle issues involved and it takes a lot to understand this area from all angles and to be NPOV. Franzio 10:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I believe Dcfleck was referring another specific editor (not you) when he made that comment. And from that editor's language at the time, i think it was a pretty accurate description. However, if you wish to make a point to him personally, i suggest you do it on his talk page and not mine, as he may well not read it here. Secondly, i am not an admin and i do not expect others to follow my line. Quite the opposite. I am more than happy for others to disagree, indeed i encourage it, as that is how we will improve the article. All i ask is that it be justified in policy as i have tried to do.

I said i would only cull staff that could not be referenced (as per policy). It wasn't a case that i culled it because i couldn't be bothered trying to find a reference, but simply because it sounded to me like POV, my subsequent research could not reveal a suitable reference and the article is overlong. Hence i deleted. Of course, if you can find a reference for it then you have every right to put it back. The reason i have not been in your words "participat[ing] in suggestions and discussions" is because i agree with much that people have proposed. Editors do not need everyone's agreement to make a edit, especially if they justify their edit in policy (be bold, remember!) When i disagree, i say so. Otherwise i assume people will go ahead with their editing.

As for you worrying about my opinion of anti-psychiatry, well, thanks for letting me know, but i really don't care. You will notice that i have not asked you opinion on the subject. That is because i don't care about that either, it is not relevent to whether you are a good editor or not. I only expressed those opinions to illustrate that I really do not favour one side of the argument over the other. You will also notice that i expressed negative opinions on psychiatry also, which you decline to mention. Does that mean, in your opinion, one can only edit an article if one is a firm believer in the subject? That is ridiculous and totally against policy. In many cases those individuals can make very bad edits (see Cesar's admission above for a perfect example of the problems advocates face in trying to remain impartial).

I'll repeat only because everyone seems keen to know my POV: i have no strong feeling either way on the subject, which - i believe - makes me the ideal Wikipedian to be involved in overhauling the article. Can you say the same? My only interest is making a fair, balanced and NPOV article. Of course, what i may gain in a neutral perspective, i may lose in intimate knowledge of the subject. But, again, that is where the different editors can bring their knowledge to the table. However, I would ask that you afford others the credit that you award yourself in understanding the "different, complex, subtle issues involved" - remember you do not know the background of any editor and could be doing them a huge disservice. Rockpocket 18:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I did gather that Dcfleck was referring to someone else, but it was a point to both of you having the discussion. You misrepresent your initial statement, which was that you were not going to start culling if people were attempting to source - you were told they were, and left a reassuring message for me, but then for some reason started culling anyway giving an hour for objections. You said you didn't really know this area but proceeded to make big critical changes with no real warning, without making any apparent attempt to properly check who was already involved with the page and what they may be bringing to it. You say you feel neutral and I don't doubt that, but your comments and edits must speak for themselves and I am entitled to address those. You seem like a reasonable person and I think things have just got off on the wrong foot for one reason or another, and I feel we just need a bit more patience and better communication. Franzio 19:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't start culling indiscriminately, i started referencing. The statements i couldn't find citations for i culled (as per WP:CITE), plenty more i refined to make them NPOV (with justification) and finally i removed a huge chunk of nonrelevent text justified by precendent in other articles. The citation required tags had been there for two days at least and i made a point of saying that if anyone can source the statements i removed, they are more than welcome to replace them. The very nature of editing is not set in stone, you then made further adjustments and we have a better article.

I'm not sure what else you want from me, i am following policy yet you reply with your personal opinion and not one policy justification. Quite frankly, your opinion of how you think we should work does not override policy.

As i have repeated multiple times now, you make edits and i make edits. Our opinion differs. However, i tolerate, encourage and respect your edits as i assume they are in good faith irrespective of how incorrect i perceive them to be. You appear to be personally offended by any edit i make (and automatically assume they are out of ignorance or malice) and issue a complaint. That can only lead me to assume that you do not comprehend one of the important pillars of Wikipedia: that your edits will be edited mercilessly and if you do not like that you should not participate. I will continue to delete unsourced material if i cannot source them after doing some research and no-one else makes the attempt to do so, whether it offends you personally or not. Rockpocket 21:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)