User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rockpocket. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

re: adoption

Thank you so much for contacting me again (by the way, it's easy to see how dedicated and caring you are.) I appreciate your willingness to adopt me. I am not sure how to communicate, shall i continue to come to your talk page when I have questions?

I have one article I have posted...it can use some work and I have questions re: making it better...what's expected, etc...

Please let me know best way to communicate and I will proceed with all my questions. Thanks so much!!!Nomoreworldwar 12:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted?

Hi Rockpocket,
How do I find out about the history of a deleted page? Specifically I’m interested in why List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers was deleted. Thanks! S.dedalus 07:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mostly I was interested in how to find the deletion discussion for a page. If it’s not too much trouble though, I would be even more interested in the history of the List of LGBT composers page. Here’s a subpage User:S.dedalus/temporary. Do you think that a well sourced list of LGBT artists would have a chance of survival? Also, I’m having a lot of trouble figuring out what I did wrong with my references in List of composers associated with The Holocaust. How do I get multiple uses of a single reference to be listed as a-b-c-d-e? For instance here. Thanks for your help! S.dedalus 06:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I knew there was something vital I was missing with those sources. Knowing the proper name for them also help! I’ll be done with the User:S.dedalus/temporary shortly. I just need to make some time to review it thoroughly. S.dedalus 06:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Big One"

Hey, so since you're an admin I figured you might have an answer to this one about policy. I recently read in a talk page that EveryBodyHatesChris (the one from the Coral Smith/Migospia pages) was operating troll accounts, but just out of curiosity, since he was indef. blocked is he allowed to start over and get a new account assuming he does productive edits? I would think that he would be allowed - given losing your entire edit history is still a substantial punishment, but you probably have the definite answer. Thanks for the info.--daniel folsom 10:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, trolls rarely care about their 'history', as their primary purpose is causing disruption to get attention. Your scenario is unlikely to occur, primarily because it's unlikely that a troll will become interested in being 'productive'. It's an ego thing and simply too much fun for him to troll and annoy people. The attention some trolls receive is a head rush for them, almost to the point of an addiction. Though, Wikipedia is a very forgiving place, and generally 'sins' are forgiven, but rarely 'forgotten'. Technically, it's not against the rules to have multiple accounts, provided they are not used disruptively. So, in some alternate reality, in theory, yes, a long term troll could change his stripes and become a productive editor. Peace.Lsi john 14:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Abuse report

Hi. I've filed an abuse report on the topic of Light current and his socks; see Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Tiscali DSL. Feel free to add or amend as appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry such a quick notice.. I thought it was fairly obvious, after RMS125a@hotmail got his first sock blocked ["Twenty-six plus six = ONE] another one shows up on the same set of articles? RMS never emailed me before, so I guess there's a chance I could be wrong, but he tends to use up his socks in batches. Sorry the block reason's a bit misleading, I was relying on autocomplete for the reason, and RMS did have a set blocked previously, and I forgot to check the end of the line (which was not visible on the screen). Anyway, if you want to unblock, that's ok, maybe we can establish/unestablish a relationship at RfCU? Night! SirFozzie 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

adoptee

hey there! I answered your last note to me on my talk page...there was a lot in it and i figured it would be easier to follow there. thanks as always for everything!Nomoreworldwar 15:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hegertor

Thanks for your reassurance last night. It is amazing how powerless one feels in that situation. Can I ask a favour: could you adopt me? I ask because looking at your edits you seem to be a rare example of reasonableness and compromise on controversial pages. I don't intend to be very demanding where it comes to asking for advice, but we all need a second opinion (or a kick up the backside) sometimes.--Hegertor 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rockpocket, that is very kind of you. Perfect in fact - it's the advice that is useful, not the officiality of it.--Hegertor 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a Hello

Hey, I haven't seen you around for a while! Hope there haven't been too many disgruntled users you've had to deal with since we last spoke. I just thought I'd let you know about this pretty cool project that I and another user pretty much just revived (although population still needs work) and I think you might be interested. It's called WP:Spotlight, and basically the whole idea is working to improve an article through an IRC - having the possibility to give instant feedback to any situation without the danger of edit conflicts. I'm not going to advertise it to you or anything, but I just found it recently and if it sounds like it's something you want to do you should definitely check it out. But what about you?! Have you been working on anything interesting recently? --daniel folsom 19:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I never used an IRC until then either, so I just ask a lot of questions. Meh. Great job on that article, you should try to get it to GA (or maybe featured if your ambitious). I actually never heard the phrase before - so I definitley learned something. Jeeze though, that must have been difficult researching a phrase. At environmentally friendly we wanted to find a history of usage, but naturally all we got was products and organizations, with you I imagine you'd get just articles about the match. Just out of curiosity, what's your stance on the CAT:Prisoner Of War/Irish republican army issue. From a distance I would actually think that they could be classified as POWs, because it's not like you need to have two sides agree they're fighting for there to be a war - evidently the Irish republican army considers it a war. But then again I could be wrong, so again - what're your thoughts? I think that's all for this comment, good luck! --daniel folsom 13:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Language

As I explained on the reference desk, it is not the providing of information that is the problem. It is the language used when describing suicide, because triggering language is a real problem. If you were describing baths in general, saying they are relaxing would have been no problem. Given that this was specifically in a description about reasons for committing suicide in a particular environment, describing it as relaxing is problematic. Really. If you describe the golden gate bridge as spectacular, in general, that is not a problem. If someone asks why people suicide by jumping off bridges, and you say it looks elegant or is a spectacular way to go without mentioning the inelegant and painful reality, then you could have just greatly increased the risk of someone suiciding without gaining anything for anyone. Add to this that cutting your wrists in a bath is much more accessible for most people, it really isn't a good idea. Again, really, as I have said, the problem was not the information, or the lack of a cite, or how you meant the sentence to be read. The entire problem is down to the language used and how it will be interpreted by those at risk. (Also, please notice I didn't remove your comment. I hid it, so that it was clear exactly which bit I had a problem with and what I felt the solution was. Also note that I did not revert your readdition, because I was not trying to fight but to reach the best version of an answer. Why tell me there is not concensus for removing your comment? If I thought there was, I'd have reremoved it.) Skittle 13:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)

Can you please stop editing on this page - there is an ongoing discussion - can you please join it.--Vintagekits 18:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to revert you again, I will someone else do it, but you are now edit waring - just because the British government didnt give SCS to those in England in the way they did to those in the O6 who were involved in the exact same activities against the same enemy that does not negate the fact that they were POW's.--Vintagekits 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion on the matter, but cats do not reflect opinion, the reflect facts. No-one has yet provided an independent reliable source demonstrating he was a POW in the eyes of anyone but the IRA. I have provided a source suggesting he was convicted on charges of terrorism. This is why one is added and other other isn't. WP:RS is paramount here. When consensus is established, I will happily adjust the cats myself. Rockpocket 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The American administration and courts refused to extradite IRA members back to the UK or Northern Ireland because they were engaged in a freedom struggle against Britain.--padraig3uk 19:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that relevant to Gaughan robbing a bank? Rockpocket 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, He was convicted for his part in an IRA fundraising misson, therefore he was convicted for being a member of the IRA as well as the planned raid on the bank.--padraig3uk 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I added the cat Category:People convicted on terrorism charges. He was explicitly convicted of robbing a bank for a terrorist group, hence that cat. However, I have yet to see any reliable source that explicitly states he was a POW. All I see is syntheses of logic such as: X says he was a member of the IRA, Y says the IRA was at war, Z says people arrested at war are POWs, therefore X+Y+Z = POW. That fails WP:OR. There is some evidence to suggest SCS prisoners were considered POWs, but there is no evidence he had SCS (which, I presume, was why he hunger striked.) Cats are not immune to WP:RS and WP:V. Since a source was not provided, I removed the cat. If a source is provided, the cat can be re-instated. I have expanded on this further, here. Rockpocket 19:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are trying to scupper and compromise and insult editors into the bargain you are doing a good job of it both here and at IWNB. I've lost a lot of respect for you today.--Vintagekits 19:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am all for compromise (in fact, I made the very same suggestion myself before Jackyd101 did [1], and I have made another suggestion as a way forward just now). However, we have to be careful that our compromises still adhere to WP:5P. A compromise that doesn't adhere to policy is a waste of time, because it will not be upheld. I'm not sure who I am supposed to have insulted, but that certainly wasn't my intention and If you point me to the offending personal comment, then I will happily amend it. Its unfortunate that you have lost respect for me on this issue, but to be frank, I don't really care what you think of me. As long as you continue to respect policy and act civilly, what you think of me personally is of little consequence. Rockpocket 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You've just breached WP:3RR - either self revert or I am going to report you.--Vintagekits 20:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Read the policy.

Moreover, the additional replacement on unsourced material when it had already been removed after a request for a source flirts with the boundaries of the policy. I have informed all the editors reverting of WP:V and no-one has come up with a source to justify the addition. If editors continue to to add unsourced material to forward a POV, I will start administrative process. Rockpocket 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You've just breached WP:3RR dispite an on going discussion, what sort of example are you setting. Please revert or I will report you, Please!--Domer48 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to explain to me where the violation is? Rockpocket 22:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I addition, there is an ongoing discussion on the talkpage that you have not contributed to. I suggest you read that to understand why Gaughan is not germane to the consensus at IWNB. Your reversions violate WP:V. Provide a source and this issue goes away. Until then, I suggest you stop adding unsourced content. Rockpocket 22:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As a conscientious editor...

SirFozzie has suggested that, as a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here.If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email....Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 23:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator abuse

Please, use your tools to restore this deleted article. A.Z. 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand. But can an administrator unilaterally delete an article because it is not notable? Is this subject to speedy deletion? I thought it was supposed to go through the process of Articles for Deletion. Often people find references and sources during this process, so the articles don't get deleted. A.Z. 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:COOL

So you not gonna say a should to Jack despite the fact that he attacked me first (no matter how childish that sounds) and I had been perfectly civil before his attack.--Vintagekits 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

His so-called "attack" (in reality he was questioning why you appeared to think your opinion supercedes policy) is no excuse for you to spew such vitriol. You were extremely lucky not to be blocked for that, considering the terms of your probation. You will not be warned again, a repeat of that sort of language will result in spiralling blocks. Just stop it. Rockpocket 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

POW'S

Please show some respect to other editors and stop reverting to what you consider to be the out come of this discussion. There are editors who think your wrong, respect that, and self revert. Wait till this discussion ends. --Domer48 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The editors in question refuse to respect reliable sources that do not equate with their particular POV. There is nothing more to discuss with them. Rockpocket 00:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Patience of Job Award

Dear Rockpocket, if there was an award for dealing with so much patience with the tiresome pain in the arse you would be at the top of my list of deserving candidates. I suppose you have all the qualities that makes admins. so much better than ordinary mortals like me. In your position I would throw out thunderbolts faster than Zeus! Love and respect from one who has no patience at all Clio the Muse 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this one then? And it's even hand-held! How fitting for someone who patiently bears rocks in his pockets! ---Sluzzelin talk 18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as long as the rocks don't become Stones in his Pockets. (Wiki's article Stones in his pockets is not much use here. If you don't know the play, check out this review [2] , about 6 paragraphs down where the reviewer talks about the meaning of the title.) Bielle 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That sure added the missing gravitas to my light-headed thoughts of a curious scientific mind carrying rock specimens in his pocketses. Pulling them out and contemplating, once in a while. I wasn't thinking trousers and jacket stuffed with stones! :-( ---Sluzzelin talk 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Clio. Patience is one of my few virtues to offset my many vices. Though I'm afraid my moniker has nothing to do with rocks in pockets, instead it is in reference to pockets in rocks! Specifically these little chaps, which were a research interest of mine when I was a graduate student. Rockpocket 20:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Another mysterious moniker unriddled, and such adorable chaps too! ---Sluzzelin talk 21:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights assessment

I've configured the template to allow assessment fields, so it should hopefully work now, but all the categories are non-existent, so all assessed articles just get dumped in a 'ghost' category. If you compare with another project (for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecology you'll see how it works - there needs to be an articles category (Category:WikiProject Animal rights articles), a class and importance category (Category:Animal rights articles by [class/importance]) and subcategories of that.

To each of these you should add {{catmore1|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights]]}}

And to each of the specific categories (e.g. A class or low importance) you should add {{Cat class|topic=Animal rights|class=A}}, {{Cat class|topic=Animal rights|importance=low}} etc.

For the assessment page you can just copy something from one of the other projects for a start, even just a table showing the different ratings. Generally you can just look at how other projects have things arranged and go from there. Let me know if you need help or clarification on the process. Richard001 10:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No Problem, no discussion

Rock, I back up everything I do with references, I can source all my edits, with multiple authors and publications. For every source I use I can provide three additional one's if I wish. All I get in return is name calling, opinion (considered to be better than a reference by some) and not a referenced quote between them. Any ideas? Because WP:OWNership is so not the problem. --Domer48 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here Rock, before any more help, look over this [3], now tell me its more than ownership. If I come across as touchy, --Domer48 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Here Rock, its like a novel,[4], just tell my monkeys to reference their work. That would be great. --Domer48 18:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Domer, my comment was in reference to GH's phrasing on your talkpage, and in no way a reflection of your contributions to that page. There are clearly seriously entrenched positions here and I feel comments like "a few over-the-water editors... should be looking at their own "stuff" first" reflects a culture of ownership that is unhealthy. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Rockpocket 19:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I said a few, and stand by what I have said. MarkThomas has been nothing but disruptive on the article. He has even attacked me for no reason at all, and quite nasty too. GH 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't comment on that, but what I do know is that he doesn't own any "stuff" here on Wikipedia (and by that I assume you meant articles on Britain). If individuals are causing problems, deal with the individuals, but it does not help to associate editors with articles, based nationality or ethnicity. Rockpocket 19:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I fundamentally agree with much of your input on there articles. Don't know where you get the energy from, but I'm withdrawing somewhat from WP as I find the history and their talk pages a bit tiring for my disposition. You can see my edit that I put on today under heading currencies. A bit of a change of lifestyle. Apologies for the "over..." comment, it was meant as a bit of hyperbole. If you study my past talk it's usually pretty impartial. GH 20:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you will no longer contributing as much, that is our loss. Indeed, it was your past record the inspired me to make the comment in the first place, as it seemed a bit out of character. Its no big deal really, I just saw it as a symptom of how deep the divissiveness runs between these two "camps" of editors, when we should really all be editing towards the same goal. That an editor with a record of impartiality would use that phrase suggests to me how obviously established the "camps" are. It was meant as a reflection on the situation, rather that you. Though I appreciate it may not have come across like that.

I find the whole Irish/British things tiring too. I have no real interest in the subject at all and while I am educated enough to have a POV, I don't care enough to worry about it being represented. I came to the subject via an administrative matter and was astonished at how political issues were running roughshod over WP:V, specifically. Since reliable sources of verification tends to favour the establishment position, the inevitable result tends to be appear as if we are biased towards the establishment POV. And to some extent we are, but that is the inherent problem with Wikipedia, and nothing to do with the POV of the editors enforcing that policy. Trying to make editors with a strong alternative POV appreciate that is a near impossible task however.

Anyway, good luck in your new ventures and I certainly hope you will find the lure of the project too strong to resist for long. Rockpocket 20:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Deserved

		The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
		For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one Pseudoanonymous 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have much more than 500+ please don't be offended; I am thinking about

The Chain Barnstar of Merit: 1500+
The Chain Barnstar of Diligence: 2500+
The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour: 5000+

or maybe just for you

The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Eliteness: 10 000+

But I have to make them first Pseudoanonymous 19:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Board elections

Thanks for explaining that to me! - Wardhog 21:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

conscientious editors

Hello Rock, Could you tell me which are which. Is this conscientious editors concerned to improve Wikipedia[5]. --Domer48 13:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

While I understand that with Kittybrewster's... contentious... history that it would be nice to edit without that history being used against him, I do have concerns about Kittybrewster admitting that he is editing under several alternate accounts. While WP:SOCK says this is not a problem under some circumstances, I would definitely be concerned that this could be used in several ways that are against WP Rules. Namely, avoiding the appearance of CoI on his family, and it must be tempted to gain advantage in edit wars and AfD debates. Perhaps, you could approach Kittybrewster privately and get a list of the alternate accounts he uses? I agree that making them public would be counter to what Kitty is using them for.. but with an admin knowing these alternate accounts, it would reduce the temptation (and there always is temptation, we are human, after all) to use those alternate accounts in methods that would contravene WP rules? SirFozzie 16:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SirFozzie. Kitty probably has a point about the very fact he makes an edit, means it will attract the attention of other editors. Nevertheless, I don't believe using alternative accounts is the best solution to that. Sadly there is a history of sock and meatpuppets being used to circumvent policy by warring editors in this field, and its difficult to track them down. Whether that is Kitty's intention or not, one can find oneself in trouble with undeclared socks. I will approach Kitty and ask him if he would consider providing me a list of socks, that I will keep private. he is under no obligation to do so, of course, but perhaps he will out of good faith. I hope that goes some way to addressing you concern. Rockpocket 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Who can help? Three questions (in your own time, no hurry)

1. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia that I don't understand. Some are merely poorly written, but others are of subject matters way beyond me. (If there is a formula any more complex than A+B = B+A in the text, I am incapable of reading any of the words around it.) *My first question is: who is the "target audience", who are the assumed "readers" of Wikipedia for whom we write? I can't draw any conclusions by looking at the articles: for some, the target appears to be barely literate juveniles, while for others, you'd need a master's degree in the area of specialization just to get through the introduction. If there is a guideline for me to read, just show me the link.

2. I keep running across articles on middle schools in Ohio or high schools in Glasgow that have no "meat" at all. There is no notable graduate mentioned, and no distinction named (historical, academic or athletic). I have read the proposals and every essay "Search" could find for me on how to treat school articles. They are mostly ranting, and there is no clear consensus. These articles, for some odd reason, seem to be very sensitive. *What's the reason for the delicate treatment when anything similar would be an obvious speedy delete?

3. I normally can read English (exception as noted in the first paragraph) at a reasonably advanced level. I can usually work my way through any guideline or series of instructions (unless the instructions begin, "Holding Slot A vertically, insert Tab B ..."). After three tries, however, I can make nothing workable out of the guidelines for images or the instructions for uploading and/or attributing them. *Is this an area most people just leave to the few who have mastered the art, or is there another, simpler explanation that I have missed?

Whenever you have a minute either to jot down some pointers or redirect my queries, I'd be grateful for the help, here or on my page, as it suits you. Bielle 08:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rockpocket: Thank you for your usual meticulous answer. I am reassured to discover I am not the only one puzzled by these questions. I will be in touch when I have something specific to try. With great appreciation, as I know how long three paragraphs takes to formulate and then to type, with links (something I am but shaky at), I remain, your humble and ob't servant, - Bielle 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RD achive index

Do you think an RD archive index, maybe using a mix of sub-topical and alphabetical classification systems, might be something useful at all, or does this sound like a complete waste of time? It looks like a lot of work and categorization won't always be easy. On the other hand, as a non-mnemonists, the only way I find old questions is by filing endlessly through archives, or (when I'm lucky) remembering an obscure wikilink, going to that page and clicking "What links here"? I'm toying with the idea, but if I do it, I want it to be useful and sustainable, i.e. maintainable. Thoughts? ---Sluzzelin talk 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that one retired early. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 07:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman

Regarding your comments at User Talk:Ombudsman, you may already be aware that it's not the first time that user has misused the charge of vandalism: [6]. He's well aware (or at least has been notified before) that these things aren't vandalism and that he shouldn't fling the term around. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Making you aware

That I have blocked MarkThomas for 24 hours for his comments, sprinkled all over the past few days, such as [7] [8], [9], [10]. I have also signaled my desire to quit this whole series of articles, because I'm, quite frankly, tired of dealing with the constant wars. I have made comments on my talk page that could be considered uncivil by those who think I have a bias in this issue, so I invite a neutral admin to look over my block, and my comments, and to determine if I have violated WP rules. SirFozzie 14:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't have any concerns with this block, the editor was clearly baiting and is experienced enough to know better. In the context of the wider situation here, I think it is justified.

If I may offer an opinion, SirFozzie, on your efforts in mediating this mess. You found yourself charged with an impossible job here and have been doing a sterling job under extremely challenging circumstances. I've been able to dip my toes in and out, whereas you have been neck deep in this for a few weeks. However I think it was inevitable that things were going to get to you in the end. I think this is probably a good juncture to take a short break from being SirFozzie the Anglo-Irish, mediator and go and do some old-skool editing to recharge your batteries. If you do decide to step back, feel free to refer individuals in my direction if they need assistance on this issue. Do come back though, as I'm not sure I could last more that a week or two without you! Rockpocket 06:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Impressive work all round. Tyrenius 16:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

		Golden Wiki
		Awarded to Rockpocket for acting as an example of reason, fairness, firmness and civility as an administrator -- Tyrenius 16:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Recused yourself?

Hi Rockpocket, maybe you should have recused yourself in the blocking of Vintagekits. I think there is a history between the two of you. (RECUSE:To disqualify or seek to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement.) -GH 16:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with this. Rockpocket has shown nothing but patience and kindness with this problematic user. He richly deserves the barnstar above. What is your interest in the matter, Gold heart? --John 17:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gold, after VintageKits's activities last night, even I, who've mentored him, and done what I can to try to smooth his path on WP, have no problem with the block. ESPECIALLY with the email threats. SirFozzie 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I have my own opinions, I won't go through the edits as the arguments will go on forever. An admin should avoid being chief witness, senior counsel, judge, jury and executioner, esp with indef block. GH 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gold heart you can comment here (although I imagine this is where you have just come from).--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rockpocket, just a headsup, forwarding you an email. SirFozzie 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments (and for the barnstar, Tyrenius, I appreciate the gesture). Editors are free to form their own opinions on my motivations, but I saw no reason to recuse myself since this "history" between Vk and I is little more prior administrator intervention, guidance and supervision. I was not involved in the articles or incidents for which I issued the block. Moreover, on issuing an indef block I immediately asked other admins to review the decision. The consensus appears to support the action, therefore I don't feel as if my decision was particularly controversial. I would note that a when a problem editor considers an admin an adversary (because that admin took action against them previously), it does not follow that the admin considers that editor an adversary also, or that that is grounds for recusal.

However, I would welcome, and fully co-operated with, a WP:RfC, if anyone feels there is a conflict of interest on my part that led to an injustice. I'm also happy to leave any reconsideration of Vk's block in the hands of the community. If anyone chooses to unblock, and can justify doing so, I will not protest. Rockpocket 05:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving on...

I've replied to you here. I apologise if you saw my previous post as a personal attack - it wasn't - but I find the whole aggravating stupidity of this situation infuriating. Please read what I've written, even though it doesn't require (or merit) a response. I know just how SirFozzie, above, feels - the only difference is that he can walk away from it.

I just wonder whether we can't use the recent events to move on. My suggestion: as of today, right now, we have an Act of Oblivion. A line in the sand. No references to past events, no inquiries into past events. Kittybrewster voluntarily gives up his duplicate accounts, as does anyone else. No sanctions for past events. Part 2: as of today, CEM/ 1RR/ WP:CIVIL, etc., etc. applied rigidly. From now on, no warnings. Admins come down like a ton of bricks on any edit or POV warrior.

I'll deliver myself, and I'll use my best offices to bring along as many as possible of the 'British' side and I promise to do my best to enforce it. If some 'chunt' (whatever that is) wants to wage war, he'll do it on his own and without anyone backing him up.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Major Bonkers (I love your name, by the way). I have replied on your talk page, but would like to also register my support for your proposal here. I think this is as good a junction as any to draw a line and I would be happy to participate/assist in any way I can. Rockpocket 05:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Bonkers, I agree that something has to be done to end the constant edit wars and POV pushing, I haven't yet agreed to the CEM idea as I am still waiting for a outline on how this will work in practise when it involves multiple editors, also the 1RR idea is fine in theory, but in cases where an editor is blatently inserting POV into articles then I think that 1RR won't work as the removal of POV is WP policy and can't be ignored.--padraig 10:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Thanks for yours - I've marked the issue as 'resolved'. 'Nuff said. Major Bonkers - not to be confused with Major Clanger. Anyway, I'm trying to get an Irish editor to agree and bring his side on board; I hope I have better luck than with the CEM proposal, which has now disappeared into SirFozzie's archive <sigh>. Perhaps if I can get enough editors to agree, the proposal could become binding on those who stay out.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Bonkers, could you set out somewhere in WP exactly how this CEM idea is going to work in practice, the inital CEM idea was intended to only include two editors, how will this work when involving more then two. As for the idea above of making the CEM binding on those that stay out of the process, that can't be done, as long as editors abide by WP policies then no group of editors can impose rules on other editors, also asking editors to agree to a unknown as this idea currently is going to far, your asking editors to agree to be binded to a agreement where the details of what it involves are not yet decided. The best way forward is for those pushing this idea to put the idea in writing so that other editors can discuss the idea and propose additions or changes, then try to achieve a consensus that all sides are happy with and can work with.--padraig 10:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This link for Rockpocket, re. recent criticism [11].--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Adoption Request

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

reliable source

I've researched Peter Breggin further. He founded his own Psychiatric association. He founded his own Psychiatric journal and sits on the board of the other journal that he most frequently publishes in. His books and the journal are all published by the same publishing company. Thus one can say that he has publishes in Psychiatric journals, and has published many books, and is the founder of a Psychiatric organization. He has a degree from Harvard. In all respects he appears to be citable source yet he is anything but a conventional scholar or expert in the field, in fact the criticisms of him in the legal system and academic world have been scathing with regards to his methodology and opinions. He has written on most aspects of mental health and editors always want to cite him in Wikipedia. Can you help me here? Should he be considered a citable reliable source? Would he be considered a "minority opinion" and if so should that be qualified? or would he fall under this catagory? "* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. How would you make the case to other editors in discussion on what sort of source he is?

I'll check this page for a response.--scuro 13:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

All good questions, Scuro. I do have a problem using him as a source for factual content, but I see him as being an appropriate source representing a significant minority critical opinion. In that I think he can be used as a source for anti-psychiatry criticism in related articles, but it should not be misrepresented as accepted by the mainstream and should not be afforded equal coverage as mainstream opinion which has many hundreds, if not thousands, of peer-reviewed content for sources. Because of his maverick status and because he pretty much self publishes, anything sourced to Breggin should really be explicitly attibuted ("According to ECT critic Peter Breggin, yadda yadda yadda") rather than stated as fact ("ECT causes brain damage" (source: Breggin et al)"), unless there is wider support backing it up. Its always going to be a challenge convincing supports that what they believe in is a fringe theory. I think the best guideline for Breggin is WP:FRINGE. Is there a specific aticle where you see this as a problem? Rockpocket 20:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I simply needed to know how to relate to Breggin and other Antipsychs off of their pages. --scuro 02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Prisoner cats

I'm finding this section title extremely distracting.

The reason I stopped discussing the proposed cats on the IWNB was (a) because the discussion suddenly stopped and (b) because it was hard to continue a rational discussion with people saying "what's wrong with POW?" or "they're all terrorists anyway!" I was hoping for the discussion to continue on CfD because I think there may still be fine-tuning to be done. For instance, "People imprisoned on criminal charges", when you think about it, is as non-specific as it gets - it could include everybody from Ian Brady to Paris Hilton. The cat(s) should probably be "Irish republicans imprisoned on criminal charges" and "Ulster loyalists imprisoned on criminal charges", which leads to another consideration - "republicans" should really be "Irish republicans", so that any of Dubya's colleagues in the GOP won't be included. The hierarchy I'm suggesting, then, is:

Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict

Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict

Category:Irish republicans interned without trial

Category:Irish republican prisoners accorded Special Category Status

Category:Irish republicans imprisoned by UK jury courts
Category:Irish republicans imprisoned by UK non-jury courts

Category:Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism
Category:Irish republicans imprisoned on criminal charges

and ditto for loyalists. You see that if we're aiming for specificity the cat names begin to get unwieldy, but specificity is our declared aim so, so be it. Please let me know if you think this makes sense (reply here - I'll be watching). Scolaire 21:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to have a reasonable discussion with POV noise distracting from the debate. I agree "People imprisoned on criminal charges" is general, but it would be useful as a parent category, in which the Irish republicans and Ulster loyalists imprisoned on criminal charges could be placed. The goal is to go from general to specific by sub-categorisation. I am more than happy to discuss the issue further in any forum and if renaming or deleting an existing cat is required, then we have to open it to the community, but if creating a new category is all that is required, then i'm tempted to be bold and get going on it.

I am a little perplexed by your proposed hierarchy though. I don't think Category:Irish republican prisoners accorded Special Category Status can be a subcat of Category:Irish republicans interned without trial as many SCSs were tried by courts. I think it needs to be a subcat of Category:Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism (since, I assume, the political/terrorist nature of the charges are what got you SCS status in the first place) Rockpocket 23:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was dumb! SCS was indeed post-internment. But I think that that only underlines the usefulness of having a proper discussion in a forum more neutral than IWNB. I don't pretend to have all the answers and, to your credit, neither do you. If you want to have "People imprisoned on criminal charges" as a parent then I think it would be useful to have input from other countries where people are imprisoned on criminal charges - indeed it's only polite to ask for their input because their prisoners will be going in there as well. I'm all for being bold but, at the end of the day, if people choose not to use your cats then it would be a lot of hard work for nothing. Scolaire 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is fair enough. Would you like to propose it for discussion there, or would you like me to? Rockpocket 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you should. It's your baby more than mine. Scolaire 08:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm a bit busy today, but i'll try and draft something this evening based on the proposed heirarchy above. I'll direct the discussion at the Irish Wikipedians' Noticeboard there. Rockpocket 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Scolaire 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I gather you haven't actually initiated this yet. I've been looking at the hierarchy again and I'm still not completely happy with it. Having "imprisoned on charges of terrorism" etc. as a subcat of "imprisoned by UK non-jury courts" (my idea btw, not yours) would mean that the latter cat would never be used, except as a parent. It would be preferable to have both cats for every prisoner, in order to specify how they were imprisoned, and what they were imprisoned for (in other words, instead of both "POW" and "terrorist"). You can get quite befuddled when you try to put each subcat into the appropriate parent cat, but I've been shifting them around for a couple of hours and I think the following might be the best:

Category:Prisoners and detainees

Category:People imprisoned on charges of terrorism

Category:Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism

Category:Irish republican prisoners accorded Special Category Status

Category:Ulster loyalists imprisoned on charges of terrorism

Category:Ulster loyalist prisoners accorded Special Category Status

Category:People imprisoned on criminal charges

Category:Irish republicans imprisoned on criminal charges
Category:Ulster loyalists imprisoned on criminal charges

Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict

Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict

Category:Irish republicans interned without trial
Category:Irish republicans imprisoned by UK jury courts
Category:Irish republicans imprisoned by UK non-jury courts
Category:Irish republicans imprisoned by ROI jury courts
Category:Irish republicans imprisoned by ROI non-jury courts

Category:Loyalists imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict

Category:Ulster loyalists interned without trial
Category:Ulster loyalists imprisoned by UK jury courts
Category:Ulster loyalists imprisoned by UK non-jury courts

People whose convictions were overturned

The first block of cats need not be restricted to NI-related imprisonment, but could include "Al-Qaeda members imprisoned on charges of terrorism" or "Falun Gong members imprisoned on criminal charges". The last cat might be a separate issue, but I think it's worth tackling while we're on the subject. The current cat, Category:British wrongfully convicted people runs into a similar POV problem for people like the Birmingham Six, who are supposed to be British because they were from NI, when in fact they were arrested because they were Irish. Since those cases arose out of the NI conflict, we may as well address them along with the others. Scolaire 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Scolaire, quick observation, You should also include Category:Irish republicans imprisoned by Free-state Military courts or tribunials, as many Republicans were before it became the Republic.--padraig 15:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got bogged down at work and didn't get home until late last night, so I haven't done anything with regards to this yet. Perhaps tonight. I think your new heirarchy is better. However, I don't think there is an issue with having unpopulated parent cats. In general, parent cats should be unpopulated with individual article, as we should be able to group everything into the appropriate subcats.

Also, while I appreciate it is difficult to illustrate on a page, the heirarchy should be more of a web than a tree. Some subcats should appear in more than one parent cat. For example, Category:Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism should be a subcat of both Category:People imprisoned on charges of terrorism and Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict. There are a few more examples that can fit in multipe parent cats. Rockpocket 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say there in principle, and I certainly didn't mean for my hierarchy to be cast in stone. Feel free to play with it yourself before you bring it to CfD. My only concern was that "imprisoned by xx courts" and "imprisoned on charges of yy" not be subcats of each other, because that would lead to one of them being left out, and I'm convinced after the discussion we've had that we need to use both on each article. Padraig is quite right, by the way - there are articles on republicans imprisoned by the Free State, and there probably should be more. Scolaire 07:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Apologies again for not getting this on CfD yet, i'm really busy at work and simply haven't been able to find the time to collate and present it. It may be the weekend now until I can do it, but I've not forgotten. Rockpocket 17:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't apologise for not doing it. The longer it takes the happier I am! I want to be sure we both know exactly what we're doing before we have to justify ouselves to the wider community. Scolaire 19:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

History Today

Well, have a wander down memory lane [12]. Clio the Muse 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for the heads-up. I can only say your actions have been exemplary. Tyrenius 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell page - deletion of references

Hi, i see from SirFozzies page that he wants to take a break from "arbitrating" for a while. otherwise i would have gone to him to request help. MarkThomas, a user that is involved in the Arbcom case that SirFozzie started on the Irish Potato Famine, has been deleting references (again) on the Cromwell page [13]. He has a history of reference deletion, and I´ve made an RFC on him, as well as contributing to the Arbcom case. If users like him can keep doing this without consequence then the whole WP project is a waste of time. Regards Hughsheehy (forgot to sign the first time) Hughsheehy 19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Rockpocket. I did make a mistake on the one you refer to and will add it back. However, reading your comments to Hughsheehy, I see that you regard this as bad behaviour by me and an alleged repeat of previous bad behaviour. This accumulation of "bad behaviour" reports arises from a chain of misleading and misunderstood attacks on me by Hughsheehy, Domer48, Sarah777 and others connected to my attempts to de-POV articles related to British and Irish history. Many of the edits I made have stuck, but in the process I was subjected to what amounted to fusilades of attacks, some of them very deliberately and cynically misleading and a determined attempt to game admins. See for example Sony-youth's comments on this under "SirFozzie and favouritism" in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence.

In the actual article, the massive chain of references that variably support the genocide claim are way, way over the top and I think if someone else were editing this down other than myself you would not have commented. I don't have a "history of reference deletion" as claimed by Hughsheehy on your talk page. The previous one he gets worked up about me deleting he misrepresents as a reference deletion when it was no such thing. What got this started was there used to be a sentence in the Cromwell article that claimed the Down Survey stated that Cromwell had devastated the population of Ireland, or words to that effect, allegedly supported by a reference. I deleted the sentence and the reference because the Down Survey says no such thing and the reference was to a contemporary interepretation of that historical source.

I do appreciate that it might look to a passing admin as if I am damaging sources, but what I'm actually trying to do is get an element of NPOV into what is a very contentious issue. The Cromwell invasion of Ireland is a cause-celebre within Irish history and an extremely emotional and politically-laden saga. It is an object of faith with many Irish nationalists and others that Cromwell was the destroyer and mass-murdered in Ireland. Yet many mainstream historians do not agree or take a more moderate opinion. It is very difficult to argue a negative; some historians, mainly in the Irish tradition, or from the US, argue that it was genocide. Others do not say this, but there is no book counter-attacking the "genocide theory" because it is not a theory that would widely be taken seriously by many historians.

In summary, I am trying to edit from an NPOV perspective and getting a great deal of flak for it. MarkThomas 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wear the helmet I gave you, Mark and let my blockings be a warning to try and be patient however tedious it may seem. Really the only WP policy approved way to balance minority viewpoint sources is to balance them with "majority viewpoint" sources.

Hugh: Have you tried e-mailing Mark? He's not an ogre and you may be able to sort out issues like these without the awareness that others are watching (and cheering on?) entrenched positions. God bless!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)}talk • 10:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cromwell - reprise

Hi Rocketpocket. Thanks for the intervention. Without getting into ALL of the refs that were deleted, please note however, that one of the other references deleted by MarkThomas (and not replaced) was from a scholar of genocide (a guy called Manus Midlarsky) from a book called "The Killing Trap: Genocide in the Twentieth Century", published by Cambridge University Press.

Midlarsky is a Professor [14] at Rutgers in New Jersey, published by Cambridge, whose book also quickly reviews several historical genocides, or what he considers genocides, and he presents Cromwell & Ireland on a number of occasions in unambiguous terms as a genocide.

MarkThomas has been attacking every reference, using different arguments every time. The Midlarsky ref (and others) have been attacked on the grounds that he (an apparently Jewish Polish political and military historian) is Irish, writes with an "Irish Nationalist" perspective, or even that describing the activties of Cromwell and Co as genocide would "demean" the Holocaust, and has now deleted it on the grounds that "Midlarsky is an authority on the Holocaust and 20th century genocide; he only makes passing reference to Cromwell and draws on other sources".

Now I struggle to see how any living historian could write with first hand knowledge of Cromwell and if they did I´m sure MT would object to anything they wrote as being Original Research. Whatever MT says, he has a history of deleting solid references (and has previously done it a few at a time) and if he and people like him can continue to do it there´s no hope for WP.

Since edit warring is unproductive I´m not even going to start replacing the deleted references but I´m again appealing to you (as an admin) for help. Hughsheehy 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Midlarksky is a specialist in the Holocaust and I view it as propagandistic to bring what is a passing reference in one of his general books about genocide to Cromwell as a reference in this case. However, if you want to re-insert it Hughsheehy, I will not object as the issue is a marginal one.

The argument you keep making that I have a history of deleting references is incorrect. I have deleted references in articles where these have been entirely irrelevant to the sentence meaning they are alleged to support. Most of these edits, including the Down Survey one that Hughsheehy so vehemently objected to, have stuck.

There is even less hope for WP if in the interests of pushing a particular line all sorts of bogus and unrelated material purports to reference what are essentially partisan views. I know these views are incredibly strongly held within Ireland but that does not make them objectively true beyond all discussion. Anyone trying to create NPOV within these articles gets a barrage of criticism as above. I am not surprised Hughsheehy is trying to recruit an admin to support what is essentially a content dispute. This has also been a standard tactic of the group of Irish editors who strongly dislike any contradiction to their viewpoint, bogus references and all. Editors can argue the worth of citations and it is fatuous nonsense to claim that just because you, Hughsheehy, have added a reference, it is beyond reproach. Note that in Talk:Oliver Cromwell a number of other editors dispute the genocide argument and excessive referencing. This isn't just about me. MarkThomas 10:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse my butting in Mark, but might I suggest that you remark out inappropriate references or perhaps move them to more appropriate passages in the article? I know you are really very well meaning and conscientious, but sometimes innocent actions can appear a little brusque or dismissive. And aren't some of us lucky in having broadband so all significant and properly referenced points of view can be included? even those "of Irish editors who strongly dislike any contradiction to their viewpoint". Let's try and be endlessly patient and sort this out on the article's talk page. You know you're both bloody good editors!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)}talk • 10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually do agree that Hugh is a very good editor, which probably makes me more steamed up sometimes if I think he is wrong on something! I do appreciate all the reasonably-minded editors on these articles and sometimes I get in a stew and I know I can be annoying when that happens. I will take on board what you Gaimhreadhan (and Rockpoppet). MarkThomas 10:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That´s almost funny that, now I´m a very good editor. The number of times i´ve been accused of POV over the last many months is beyond counting and the number of references deleted as being POV is similarly beyond counting.

As for (again) this reference to the Down Survey that MarkThomas (again) says I objected so vehemently to the removal of several months ago...I HAD NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE TO THE DOWN SURVEY so I had never objected to removal of such reference because I didn´t know enough to do so. I´ve told MT this a bunch of times too, but he keeps coming back with the same nonsense.

As for Midlarsky, he´s a professor at a major US university, and he´s written a book on genocide published by Cambridge University Press and he mentions Cromwell SEVERAL TIMES, i.e. not just "passing reference".

As for MarkThomas having "no history of deleting references", that is untrue. Diffs don´t lie and MarkThomas has deleted references many many times and diffs are available. Even now MarkThomas is spinning webs of sophistry. A little bit of courtesy and straightforward honesty would be appreciated. Hughsheehy 17:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Be gracious and at least accept Mark's apology, Hugh. Mark is actually conceding that he will be a bit more careful with name calling and ref-deleting in future. Let's all extend the hand of friendship and co-operation and make our encyclopaedia better. It takes a big man to apologise and I know Mark didn't actually use the "A" word but, heck even admins sometimes have difficulty admitting they are not infallible...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)}talk • 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you calling fallible? ;P I'm sorry, gentlemen, that I am really busy at work today and so don't have the time to comment at length at the moment. I'll respond to you both at the weekend. However, feel free to keep the discussion centralised here, if you wish and, as Gaimhreadhan says, please try and use this as a platform to move forward contrstructively rather than recriminate past actions. Whats done is done, the question is, does it need to contine? Rockpocket 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ER?

Hey Rockpocket - what do you think about me requesting an editor review?--daniel folsom 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright - thanks for the quick answer - it is done.--daniel folsom 20:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

removal of POV tags

Hello RP. I have had a longstanding dispute with an editor who has removed every single edit I have made and every POV tags I have added. You can read about it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dextroamphetamine#Mediation_cabel_conclusion-_do_not_to_remove_POV_tags_of_other_editors_without_consensus I'm not sure what to do next. Do you have any suggestions?--scuro 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Your input here would be useful. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Things look to be resolving themselves over there and VK has signed up to something Foz put forward which looks quite agreeable. I'm about ready to unblock the guy as he has signed up to this already but await your input. Thanks - Alison ☺ 18:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Integrin

Hi. Do you think this was an improvement? A.Z. 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Erasing my work

Yo rockpocket i don't appreciate you erasin my work like that homie. i don't care if you are an administrator, don't erase my work.