User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 20

←

Archive 25

"Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky"

Did you know that Tennyson wrote a verse especially for Wikipedians?

Ring out a slowly dying cause,

And ancient forms of party strife;

Ring in the nobler modes of life,

With sweeter manners, purer laws.

And so, Rockpocket, to you and those you love, every good wish for a very happy New Year! ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A New Year

Behold, you've entered 2009. Will Harper survive in Canada? Will Obama deliver in the USA? Will Brown face the voters in the UK? etc etc. Let the waiting, begin. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r^c 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Neuronal vs. Neural

Hi Rockpocket: I trust that as a jobbing neuroscientist you know what you are talking about, it's just that I'm trying to ferret out as much definition as possible so that I can properly use these terms on my own. In The Brain That Changes Itself the terms are used everywhere in every possible way so it's madness. I have read that you shouldn't needlessly vary the words you use to describe something. So any further enlightenment you might have on this topic I would really appreciate. When I place my article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" over at peer review in the coming weeks, would you mind commenting briefly or at length?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Happy New Year. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7#Category:Northern_Irish_people seems to me to lead on to rename Welsh people as People from Wales, Irish people as People from the Republic of Ireland, etc. In other words it will clash loudly with the process directed by ArbCom. Maybe you can sort it. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to canvas again with a non-neutral message! Anyway I think you will find that your rationale is flawed - Irish people refers to both an ethnicity and a nationality - Northern Irish does neither. toddle pip!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, but I'm going to decline to comment (at least for the moment), because I see see both POV's and I can't decide which would be best. I understand the rationale for Vk's suggested nom because I appreciate NI's rather unique position. Nevertheless, it does rather risk setting a precedent if applied more widely (which is shouldn't, but inevitably would, be). I'll watch and wait for now, to see whether anyone can convince me either way. Rockpocket 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Rockpocket, for blocking Mr IP (my recent harrasser). GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you continue to have unwelcome comments on your talk page from unregistered editors, let me know and I can semi-protect it as needed. Rockpocket 20:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Busy?

If not, can you take a look here? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout the delay, I've been out of the loop this week. Looks like Blowdart's suggestions may have cooled things down a little. I've nothing further to add that this time, but I'll keep one eye on the discussion. Rockpocket 22:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bailing me out

You came up with the requested answer on New Zealand, just as I was beginning to sweat. Phil_burnstein (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, your answer was perfectly fine. Rockpocket 22:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cuban Break

They won't let me bring my beer into the computer room, so this will be short. It is also costing 10 Convertible Cuban Dollars ($US x 1.08) per hour, yet another reason for keeping the message short. I am keeping the sand out of my drinks and most of the sun off the bridge of my nose. What more is there to be done? 200.55.169.226 (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) (but you know who I really am!)

Glad to hear you are having a great time! I'll drop you an email when you get home. Rockpocket 22:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Back -and paying attention. ¤ ₳ ₳ BL ₵ ₳ ¤ (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article about expression vector

Hello Rockpocket. I contact you because you are an admin who I believe is knowledgeable on the subject. While browsing User:Seans_Potato_Business's user page, I noticed that he had written an article on the expression vector PMal-C2, which has been deleted due to lack of notability. I'm not an expert on this, but a google search gives 13,000 hits. I tried to find the discussion leading to the deletion, but was unable to. Was there an obvious link that I missed? And do you think the deletion was justified? --NorwegianBlue^talk 22:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello NorwegianBlue. I checked the logs and Luna Santin (talk · contribs) deleted the article on 20 September 2006 after Petaholmes (talk · contribs) had added a {{prod}} tag 8 days earlier. Since the prod wasn't challenged, there was no deletion discussion. Petaholmes offered the justification, "one of 1000s, no notability."

The article itself was a stub that said:

pMal-C2 is a commercially available plasmid derived from the naturally occurring pMal and used to insert genes into bacteria. It is therefore an example of a cloning vector and is available in several different forms. The patent is held by New England Biolabs.

I actually do think the deletion was justified, since pMal-C2 is just one variation of many pMal vectiors available. There is nothing particularly notable about it. A better argument could be made for an article on pMal itself [1], but perhaps a redirect to, and expansion of, Maltose binding protein would be best. Rockpocket 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, sounds reasonable. Thanks for checking and for your opinion! --NorwegianBlue^talk 12:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Royal Raymond Rife

Hello,

I was wondering if you could have a look at the Royal Raymond Rife defamation article. I tried to link it to non invasive RF therapy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-invasive_RF_cancer_treatment&redirect=no

That article then disappeared. I fail to see how Bowditch is an authority over the publications listed on http://rife.org The article seems to have serious wp:own issues.

Thanks,

84.104.135.86 (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've had a look at this article and have a few comments. The Non-invasive RF cancer treatment article was redirected to a subsection of its inventor's bio. Since the treatment is currently only experimental, its probably best to leave it this way. If and when it is licensed then it can, of course, be reinstated. You can still link to this material, as it will automatically redirect.

Regarding the wider issue of Rife's published work as a reliable source. We have to be very careful with citing primary scientific publications as evidence of anything, particularly those that are many decades old. Scientific consensus is a more important consideration. Rife's work can certainly be cited for historical perspective, but more recent secondary or tertiary sources will inevitably reflect scientific consensus more accurately.

That said, I'm not convinced its our place to divide external links into mainstream and promotional sources is appropriate, we should explains what the links are, let readers decide. I'm also not convinced that the lead should have two of the first four sentences explaining why his work was flawed.

Finally, I strongly disagree with semi-protecting a talk page when the article itself is protected. I have unprotected it, but urge all contributors to use the page appropriately and constructively. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Rockpocket 00:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with unprotecting the talk page, but can I ask you to familiarize yourself more deeply with its history? There's been an extraordinarily lengthy history of egregious talk page abuse (check the archives), so I'm not sure what led you to conclude that there has been "no evidence of talk page abuse". I agree that the recent abuse is less severe than what's gone on over the past year or two, but it's had sort of a cumulative effect from my perspective. If you're interested, can I ask your help with keeping the talk page on-topic, removing/refactoring blatant talk page abuse, and educating dedicated advocates on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies? It might also be a good idea to drop Moreschi a line and let him know you've reversed his administrative action. I don't know if he watches Talk:Royal Rife, and most admins would prefer to be notified (before, but at the very least after) one of their actions is undone. MastCell ^Talk 00:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Regards "no evidence of talk page abuse", I meant during the recent exchanges. The IP that left me the message appears to be the only unregistered editor who has edited the page for two weeks. I can only assume the protection was to restrict him, but don't see anything in his recent talk page edits that warrants that. Even though I find it difficult to believe that was Moreschi's intention, it does appear very much like an attempt to silence a dissenting opinion. I don't think protection of both talk and article pages, serve well the purpose of stabilizing the article in the long term. In place of protection I'm happy to volunteer to try to keep the talk page on topic and within policy. In that case, though, I'll decline to offer an opinion on any content.

Thanks for reminding me to drop Moreschi a line. I intended to leave a message for him immediately, but got distracted by other matters. Rockpocket 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. Yeah, I agree that much of the talk page abuse is older and/or involved autoconfirmed users, so maybe semiprotection didn't make sense. I think it's more cumulative frustration on my part - apologies if I came off snappish. Up to you whether you're interested in commenting on the content - either way, I appreciate more eyes on the talk page since it's low-profile and plays host to some... odd assertions. MastCell ^Talk 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I completely understand. and while I don't believe we have really interacted significantly, I'm familiar with your good work in dealing with science, fringe science and pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Sometimes "uninvolved" people look at situations and miss the the big picture. I know how frustrating that is. Conversely sometimes we can become so immersed that we miss the woods for the trees. I'll put the page on my watch-list and see if I can help 84.104.135.86 formulate some proposals to improve the article to everyone's satisfaction. Rockpocket 01:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have left comments on the talk page and the noticeboard. Are you sure you want to help such an editor? Is it worth the time invested? -- Fyslee (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

@Rockpocket: glad to have more eyes on the article. I've been staring at it too long and probably have tunnel vision. I've come to realize that good content suggestions sometimes come from unexpected places, so I wish you luck with the IP editor. Keep up the good work. :) MastCell ^Talk 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I find sometimes find that people who are strong advocates of can be really useful for digging up sources that can improve articles. Different perspectives are a good thing for achieving nuanced articles; the key is working with such individuals to help them use their material within our neutrality policies. Sometimes it takes an outsider to achieve that, because those who are involved are already cast as the "opposition". Other times anyone who disagrees with their POV is cast as the opposition, and no amount of effort to work with them will change that. Our IP friend appears to have left, so we may never know what would have happened. But should he (or another interested but inexperienced editor) decide to get involved in the discussion, I'm willing to help. Rockpocket 06:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User notice biog2

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking me for someone else [2]. Moreover, you have already been told at the BLP noticeboard that the section is supported with "good sources and [does] not constitute a BLP violation." Your habit of issuing standard user warnings to experienced users over content you disagree with is tiresome. Rockpocket 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict

Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Titch Tucker

Rockpocket, I have no further information other than the message that was placed on Titch's talk page by his son who said his dad had died. Titch and I never communicated by E-Mail. Perhaps, GoodDay would have more information, but I don't know if they communicated via E-Mail. It's extremely sad news, he was such a kind, generous person. One of his last edits at Wikipedia was on my behalf in reprimanding a troll for having sent me a nasty message. I shall never forget him nor his acts of kindness, and his sense of fellowship with the other editors at Wikipedia. He was one in a million. I shall miss him terribly. I'm sorry I have no further information to give you--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine, Jeanne, thanks for your prompt reply. While I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this sad news, we have enough trolls and troublemakers around here that I think its prudent to try and verify it before we inactivate Titch's account. Hopefully his son will email me and I can move ahead with securing his user page. I'll also ask permission to write something in memorial at WP:OBIT, which I think is richly deserved. Titch was a true gentlemen and a pleasure to work with. Rockpocket 08:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never e-mailed with Titch, so I can't help ya'll. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Animal Liberation Victoria

Hello. I have improved, expanded and referenced (I think a lot) the article Animal Liberation Victoria, in what you put the tag "notability" in March 2008. I do not know the workings of this Wikipedia, but Wikipedia in that I usually edit (Wikipedia in spanish), usually only the person who put the label has to withdraw if he believes that is no longer necessary. That's the cause I not remove it by myself. I write you to ask you if you could look the article again, and if you think is no longer needed the label, to remove it or inform me if I could or not the label. Greetings and apologize for the inconvenience. Akhran (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your message. I've removed the notability template as you requested. I would warn, though, that the entire section on Conflicts with RSPCA Victoria lacks neutral third party sources. Everything is told from the ALV perspective, and there are no independent sources that support their point of view. Unless there are unbiased newspaper articles that report on those events, I don't think that section can remain. The rest of the article is now fine, though. Rockpocket 08:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

e-mail

Hello Rockpocket. I have sent you an e-mail. Little Tuck (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded

I have responded to your comment about Titch Tucker at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians. Aecis·(away) ^talk 07:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Loomis

That's interesting. My webmail account was funneling his emails to my spam folder; apparently he tried to email me first (three times in half a day!) on Friday.

Not much of one for verbose requests, is he? (Were your requests three words long, too?) I've sent him back a Why?, as I'm not inclined to unprotect a talk page that was so persistently abused without a good reason. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Good call on chihuahua

I don't know if the dog is a him, her or it, but good call on your edit on Ingrid Newkirk page! Bob98133 (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We went through a lengthy discussion about that last year. His name is Little Man, I believe, and he belongs to User:David Shankbone. Rockpocket 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Great picture. That's what he's going to do to the next person who changes the cutline. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ETA

Hi Rock,

Rather than keep going with our thing whether it is an "illegal" org or not (we could be like that forever) let's take it somewhere where they can help us. You may be more experienced than me in this kind of stuff, is ANI the right place?

Also, if you feel like you would make a case of the template too, we could use some nice economies of scale and let the admins do the work for us, since we probably will never agree.

What do you think? MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mountolive. I think a few other opinions would be a good idea. ANI is not the place for it, though, the admins will just refer it to dispute resolution. I would suggest we both make a short statement on the talk page, explaining our respective positions, then list it at WP:3O. Would you be amenable to that? Rockpocket 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely! MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rock,

You may want to tweak a little bit your last post, since you seem to be addressing me when you talk of someone accusing you of being in bad faith in here. So far I havent said so, thus, I'd appreciate it if you make this clearer.

Let's see if we get this question addressed fast by some cold heads. It's just <yawn> so boring for the both of us... MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 01:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What a delight to see you...

...unexpectedly surface, as sweet and saucy as ever! Of course I'll admit subjectivity since you got my point, thus restoring my faith in the contributions of individuals that are the foundation of anything we want to achieve on the RDs and in WP in general. No wonder I find it so difficult to stay away! Which I must; I've got a dreadful backup of neglected obligations :-o and my free time is dwindling due to ongoing ones (like sleeping: drs' orders), so it's good to know we do reconnect from time to time. Be well! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 86.42.96.251

Rock, if this user makes another offensive remark, or disruptive editing, and it comes time to block them (which I'm quite willing to do if I see anything more), can we block them and all accounts under it. It is obviously a static (or at least semi-static) IP, and I think it's an established editor. Canterbury Tail talk 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was hoping the editor would get the message and quit with the personal attacks, because any block will inevitably be painted as attempt by the British admin cabal to oppress the poor Irish resistance. But its getting out of hand. If you see more of the same before I do, feel free to block. Otherwise I will. Rockpocket 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with such an interpretation. In fact I'd characterize it as a simple statement of fact, given the legion of Irish Editors who can no longer partake in these attempts to defend WP:NPOV against British Nationalist perspective. Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

While I was trying to find the right course of action I noticed your kind interests here. I would like to help pay the proper respects to our editors in this manner. While I was responding to help desk posts I ran across another editor that our community lost. While I'm not one to normally IAR or even be particularly be bold, I posted this on the talk page of our lost editor. Would you feel it's ok to also do the same for Titch? I know we are an encyclopedic community, but I think we should also remember that there are real people on the end of every post, and I got the impression you felt the same way. I'm not suggesting any kind of "outing" or anything like that .. just a "Thank you" for what the editors who are no longer with us. I realize that care need be taken to not reflect any particular religious beliefs, but I would like to "remember" our friends and community members. Would it be OK to post a similar "Thank you" on the Titch talk page? — Ched : Yes? : © 10:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kitty, appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback. Another question along the same lines; I noticed that Rockpocket was going to try to get some confirmation via email on User talk:Titch Tucker. Haven't noticed him listed on the WP:RIP page yet, and wondered if anything further should be done on that? — Ched : ? 01:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I spoke with Titch's son, and he preferred his father not be listed at WP:RIP. Rockpocket 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for following up on it, respecting family wishes, and taking the time to reply Rockpocket. — Ched : ? 15:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians if you're interested in helping establish some guidelines. Hope you get this, I see you're on vacation. — Ched : ? 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:History of animal rights (a question)

Hello. I was assessing some AR Articles and then I found this discussion page. It doesn't belongs to any article (I suspect "History of animal rights" was fusionated with Animal rights time ago). This page wouldn't be deleted because is useless anymore?

If the answer is no, can I delete the WikiProject tags from this discussion page to avoid it was listed in pages as this?

Greetings. Akhran (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I think I'll just delete it, as it doesn't serve much purpose. Thanks for doing some assessing. Updating that is lurking somewhere on my to-do list. Rockpocket 17:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe Talk:Andy Stepanian is in the same situation. It was merged into Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (although it has no references to this Andy). Akhran (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. If you find anymore, just list them here. Rockpocket 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I have Talk:KentuckyFriedCruelty.com too, but is a special case because this article is a fussion I had made a moment ago, but is my first merge in this Wikipedia so I don't know if I have made all OK. In Spanish Wikipedia when merged the data the editor that did that asked in a special page for that a administator merge the historials from the two articles, but I haven't found something equivalent in this Wikipedia. So I have only merged the data and changed some redirects. In any case, I think the Talk:KentuckyFriedCruelty.com is not more necessary. I apologize for any inconvenience caused in this case derived from my ignorance. Akhran (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Live transport of farm animals. Thanks. Akhran (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Declaration on Great Apes Akhran (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have found a disambiguation page with the AR Tag but I don't know if it needs the AR Assessment tag, is only a disambiguation, not an article: Talk:Animal liberation. Could I quit the tag? Akhran (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally I had quited the WikiProject Animal rights tag from that disambiguation page, that was the last "article" from Category:Unassessed Animal rights articles. Akhran (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar and for your words. That's the first barnstar I get from any Wikipedia project. I am sure my job maybe wasn't all perfect, although I tried to do the best. Soon I will try to do the same with Category:Unknown-importance Animal rights articles. Akhran (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. You did a fine job, and I will do my best to keep things up to date also. Thanks again for all your work. Rockpocket 20:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

My recent unblock

Dear Rockpocket, I'm a new admin, and this was my first unblock. Thanks for you input. If you have any advice, please give it to me. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Into the lion's den

Welcome back! Plus ça change and all that. // BL \\ (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, its great to be back. I'll compose an email to you soon (probably at some ungodly hour - jetlag). Rockpocket 23:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I shall keep an eye open. I specialize in ungodly hours. // BL \\ (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I personally often enjoy reading the intellectual back and forth on the refdesk; but in some cases (where the answers are not strictly factual) wonder if we are being fair to the questioner by giving primacy to our personal views instead of pointing them to what great minds have had to say on the issue. Glad that at least 1 other refdesker shares the view. :-) Regards. Abecedare (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Humane Society of the United States

Hello. The article Humane Society of the United States has a problem and I don't know what to do. From a time ago, an IP and a registered user (I think that are the same person) often changes the definition from the organisation from "Animal welfare" to "Animal rights". Some other users have reverted they editions before me, and I tried to talk with him about that[3], but, although I referenced that HSUS is not an animal rights group (in his discusion page and int the article), he continues make the same changes. As the IP he answer me[4] that is an animal right organisation, but without giving any references and using rude expressions as "So stop the PR bullshit.". Other users

He edits too the template Template:Alibend to show HSUS as a animal right organisation[5], without no consensus. As the registered user, even accuses others of being paid by HSUS. What could I do? I don't want to revert every day these editions, that seems to me that comes from a person with personal reasons against this organisation, and I don't want either an edition war.

Personally, I don't have any problem if HSUS turns into an AR organisation, but I believe I have referenced that is not what happened. Akhran (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and the sources do appear to support the animal welfare designation. I've reverted and left a note for the editor. I'll try and keep an eye on it, but have been rather busy recently. If this editor continues to revert to an unsupported version, please do let me know. Rockpocket 17:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to delete 2008 Star Trek redirects

I placed this request on the 2009 film's talk page for any admins to notice, but it has been ignored. You created two of the 2008 redirect pages, so I'm appealing to you to nominate them (all three) for deletion. Redirect pages: Star Trek (2008), Star Trek (2008 movie) and Star Trek (2008 film) Unfortunately I don't have the time to figure out the correct process. Delete request templates: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I used my discretion and deleted all of them as housekeeping. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Rockpocket 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Wikipedia:What would Jack do? to Wikipedia:What Would Jimbo Do?

For info: this appears to be a reaction to a recent post of mine @ Talk:British Empire. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For info in context, I did not even read the edit of his, other than skimming through and seeing the name "Jack" in the same namespace as Wikipedia. In any case, I have not really read Jack's edits on the talk page. I noticed some reactions and his reactions to others', but don't really care. What seems blatant, is inappropriate use of the namespace. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For info in further context, this was a Speedy Delete tag (Catterick), which was declined. While that process was happening, Catterick redirected "What would Jack do?" to "What would Jimbo do?", which had the effect of somewhat confusing proceedings. I'd have thought it was best to take these actions in sequence, so that everyone knew what the f*** was going on. But hey, what do I know. I don't want to appear to be defending "What would Jack do?" too strongly, but I do have a high regard for due process, which seems to have taken a bit of a back seat here. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was immediately after tagging the article, that I withdrew the deletion template and formed a redirect in its place, which appeared far more appropriate and reasonable. Yes, I will be the first to admit that my tagging was wrong. Nobody else accepts this, or have not acknowledged it. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was I that wrote that essay, not Jack. Moreover, if you consider at a "blatant... inappropriate use of the namespace", then why do you think the page you redirected it to is a better use of the namespace? My essay, at least, was aimed at assisting editors improve the encyclopaedia, you removed that content and redirected to what is essentially a joke. I intend to replace the content for the moment, but will be more than happy to discuss it further if you would like to nominate it for deletion. Rockpocket 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"rv, the content is not the same, nor is the context. This is a serious essay, the article you redirected it to is in humour." Oh right? You are so suave in self-promotion. Admins can do nothing wrong with mishandling Wikipedia and other editors as mere peons to dominate. So, how much longer do I have to wait, before you and SoWhy decide you are going to terminate my account, for taking you to task over policies you should not violate or stretch to serve your own purposes, even though going about to condemn those behaviours by "mere editors"? Do your damnedest. Play king of the mountain. It is so impressive. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand where you are coming from:

Quite how I have engaged in "self-promotion" is unclear, could you elaborate?
I don't know who SoWhy is, so its extremely unlikely he or she and I would together "terminate [your] account"
If you think I have violated a policy, I'd appreciate you explaining to me which one exactly.
The only person condemning here appears to be you.

If you think that page is inappropriate there is a process you can follow to gage community consensus, its called WP:MfD. As I noted, should you choose to follow that process, I'd be perfectly happy to discuss it further. Simply redirecting is not the due process, which is why three different editors reverted you. Rockpocket 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be all a bit academic now Rockpocket. It appears as if Catterick as retired. Jack forbes (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He clearly had a bee in his bonnet about something, but its still not clear to me why WP:JACK and, as its author, I, was the subject of his ire. Oh well. Rockpocket 20:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, do people normally take a dislike to you Rockpocket? Maybe your using the wrong aftershave. :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, eau de admin is rather pervasive and not to everyone's liking, apparently. Rockpocket 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Question at the refdesk

I don't know how closely you are following the refdesk these days, but there's a question now that I believe you're able to answer well: What makes organisms yellow?. (I notify you because I remember your work on improving the Chromatophore article to Featured article status). Thanks, --NorwegianBlue^talk 18:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, NorwegianBlue, I've left a few additional examples for the OP. Rockpocket 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)