Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:51, 11 October 2009

Welcome to Protonk's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

WT:CONSENSUS

Hiya Protonk. There's been a lot of discussion lately of what to do about the problem of hard feelings caused from the perception that changes to policy don't get a fair hearing. I'm interested in any feedback you want to give on my proposal. (Watching). - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm working on an essay that might summarize the positions in a snappier way, I'll link when it's finished. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at WT:CONSENSUS; you might also enjoy User:Dank/Essays#Consensus_on_policy_pages. I'm proposing something unusual and bold. Feel free to edit the page or discuss on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just finished major tweaks to the essay, and included a plan. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Uses of Literacy

I think you have deleted my new page on the uses of litercay for copyright violation. I think the only part of the paragraph that was not paraphrased was a direct quote from the book. The source was cited. I was in the middle of working on this and looking for all our other articles linking to it. Might this have been in error? Can you undelete it?(Msrasnw (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

• (edit conflict) It might have been, but I checked the source and the article and if it wasn't lifted directly from librarything it was awfully close. I suggest you start by recreating the article with a short line indicating (in your words) what the book is and why it is important. Then, to expand the article, look here for some sources or here or here for some reviews. I agree that the book itself is significant, but an article can't rely as closely as yours did on a single source. Does this help at all? Protonk (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It was only one paragraph with rewording and citing but with a quote from the source. It was from one source but it was, in my view appropriately cited. How do I get the article back to work on - and how do appeal against this deletion? (Msrasnw (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

• I guess we'll have to disagree as to the level of 'rewording' that went on. No need to appeal the deletion, just recreate the article on the same page as I indicated above. Start w/ one line or so and build from there. If anyone tags it as a G4 just point them to my talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I would like to appeal this decision. It might be trivial for you delete articles in this way but it is not trivial and tedious to write them. Who do I appeal to and/or how do I get it back? (Msrasnw (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC))
    • I have put a request on Request for undelete so I can edit it. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC))
      • The article is back and it seemed to me sufficiently cited and rewritten to avoid any copyright problems. I have added another source and done some further modifications. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Dear Protonk, I have complained about what I percieve as your excessively fast and inappropriated deletion of The Uses of Literacy and lack of assistance in my getting it back. My complaint is here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges I hope this was the right place to complain. If not please let me know where the right place is. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)) I think I should have put the following on your page (Msrasnw (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Protonk)

Hello, Protonk. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at ], where you may want to participate. Msrasnw (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, the issue described above seems to have been moved to WP:WQA from WP:RFC. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sim12 question

Hey! got your message....Sim12 geolocates to Canada someplace; if I remember correctly, The Chubby Brother and his sockfarm appear to be somewhere else. (I would like to send the entire mess off to the Arctic somewhere, personally.) Thanks for acting on these reports!! GJC 17:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding. Welcome back. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding declined "no license" speedies

Hi,

Noticed you have declined to delete various user-created images that lack license information stating that "license is implied". This is not correct, an explicit license template is always required per WP:IUP, even if a user upload an image created by himself, there is no "default" license assumed to be granted simply by uploading the file (unlike for contributed text), all files must be explicitly licensed. If the unloader does not choose an acceptable license, or otherwise at lest indicate the license status with plain text, tagging it as "no license" is entirely appropriate, and if not corrected in due time after notice being given deletion is the only option (if license info is produced in a "non standard" form we should naturally help the user out rater than delete the image, but if no license info is provided at all we can't do much) since we can't have files floating around with no information about it's license. I know it seems wasteful to delete images that are almost certainly intended to be released freely for such "technical" reasons but in the past there have been huge problems with thousands of images with no license info floating around (in the very early days where where no license templates at all) and inevitably someone suddenly asserts that they only intended for the image to be used for non-commercial purposes, or that they didn't intend to allow people to modify their work and such, hence the current speedy deletion criteria for any and all images that lack explicit license information. --Sherool (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Count me skeptical that the form generated licenses are irrevocable. I think I declined less than half a dozen of those. So I'll accept the feedback but it might be just as well to drop a line to the uploader asking them to clarify. Protonk (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and that is (should be anyway) done when the image is tagged as lacking license, but if they don't respond we can't just leave them in limbo forever, if the uploader show up some time after the fact with the necessary information we can always undelete the images after (or they can re-upload them), but sadly a lot of users are just never heard from again. --Sherool (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion complaint

Dear Sir,

• I presume this is a complaint about my deletion of Endermologie. Is that correct? Protonk (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list.  --Lambiam 12:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I apologize for taking some time to get back to your comment on my talk page. You may be interested in my response there. Thanks, Shereth 15:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's debate

No one on the Left approaches Buckley, but there are many Conservatives who are very smart, take me for example or Jonah Goldberg (Are you going to slander) or many of the fellows at the heritage Foundation, etc but that is not a good point to raise because you probably despise them all, and vice versa. I wrote my honors thesis (commonwealth Umass Amherst) on Mussolini's socialism. I guess he would be a former hero for the left though. You know for people like Lincoln Steffens, and Ida Tarbell, etc, etc.

Here is the real point you raised.

Why don't you defend the progressive presidents (and heros of the left) Woodrow Wilson and FDR locking up hundreds of thousands of political prisoners, and militarism and then we can talk about Buckley and segregation. JohnHistory (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

• I'm not really interested if your opening salvo is to assert that I might slander Jonah Goldberg in asserting he is nowhere near as smart as Buckley. So you can leave, satisfied that I've retreated from your obviously superior intellect. Protonk (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's weak. I asked you to justify the progressive heros Woodrow Wilson and FDR's incarceration of 100,000's of political prisoners and their overt militarism, before I debate the Buckley's segregation. I think that is pretty reasonable in the grand scheme of things, but I will let go what you started. I hope you have a pleasant evening. JohnHistory (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
    • No. You asserted that I lionized two people I don't and then demanded that I defend all of their actions for some reason. Why didn't you ask me to defend the bombing of Dresden or the Spanish American War while you were at it? You explicitly invoked Buckley as some conservative paragon so I figured there would be ample fodder for discussion. Also, kudos on not responding to my original complaint about your post on my talk page. But like I said, permission granted to walk off thinking I'm another soft headed liberal whose political education begins with the first 20 pages of any given Noam Chomsky book and ends with watching Michael Moore harangue congressmen. Protonk (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Funny you mention the Spanish American War, did you know Herbert Croly, progressive found of the New Republic said that the greatest thing about the Spanish American War was that it lead to the Progressive Party? I didn't "lionize' anything, I just predicted that you might denigrate Jonah Goldberg. You don't have to be so sensitive. here are a couple link, I recommend the whole lecture. very few people have watched this, it's off the radar, but a great lecture. these are part 2 and 4 though I recommend watching the whole thing. All the best man, and no ill will whatsoever, I hope the same from you. good night, my friend. JohnHistory (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDGTc3_r9Mg&feature=related
        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U915LmZnT_c&feature=related

Template:Infobox Australian Place

Good closing and rationale on that TfD. Very good explanation of the argument weighting. I always find it enlightening when closers go into more detail (regardless if I agree or not) and I think it helps others in similar situations, as well as helping to decrease urges to go to DRV and increasing transparency. I guess that why you get the big bucks <g>. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to withdraw my nomination initially because of the resounding strong keep this is what I had intended but I got my wires crossed in how to withdraw ir. Hesperian completely misread the situation. I've altered it to a self-withdrawal which I had intended because of the overwhelming keep to show I did try to appease the situation myself. Striking out my previous attempt at closure was not the way to go, you should have asked my to change it to a propoer withdrawal which I have a right to do and what was clearly intended.. See my comments to User:Orderinchaos I tried hard to appease the situation and withdrew my comments to avoid further conflict. My restoring what I clearly have a right to remove and overiding what I'd done has upset me greatly. I've retained your closing comments as it is an effective evaluation of the debate, but the fact remains I did with draw the nomination which is noted above. Himalayan 08:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to be completely overridden with a closure by an admin which looks on the records as if I didn't try to appease the situation and understand the concerns. I accepted all of the concerns, and I should be given credit for that and withdrawing not being overridden because I didn't withdraw it properly. I withdrew my comments withint the discussion (whihc I have a right to do) because I didn't want to create an further ill feeling or misunderstanding about my concerns. I am disappointed with the lack of good faith over this, particularly by Hesperian. I certainly was not trying to flatter anything, it was a resounding strong keep plain and simple. I do have feelings... Himalayan 09:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have reverted this editor's latest edits to the discussion and also left a message on their talk page. In opinion your close of the discussion was outstanding, and Himalayan Explorer perhaps needs to be a bit less sensitive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that you overided my attempted self-withdrawal which I have a right to do. It should at least acknowledged that I tried to close the debate myself but you struck out my comments with little respect. Himalayan 11:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've brought it up here. If my own withdrawal is not accepted then AFDs or TFDs should not be closed by other parties within a few hours especially if those disctating the outcome are acting out of self-interest and should be given a full week like most nominations. It is definately an unfair turn out. Either restore my self-withdrawal which is accpetable for ending a debate or follow procedures correctly and don't close nominations so quickly without a fair turn out. Himalayan 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jacobsen Corporate Services

Hi, you declined the speedy I added to Jacobsen Corporate Services. I have nominated it for deletion because I do not believe that this company passes the notability guidelines. If you would like to participate in the debate, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jacobsen Corporate Services. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Your WikiWork!

Is that a word? I doubt it. But thanks, your WikiElfness, for the speedy delete of my incorrectly-named personal sandbox page. WikiHugs! ... Okay, I think I've exhaused myself with WikiCuteness; going to WikiBed now, cheers. Ohiostandard (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

NPW

Hi - saw you took care of 3 after mine - just wondering if I missed something (did I take the "optional" statement too literally?). Thanks.  7  08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm SO sorry. I saw the 'thanks' below your request and somehow mistook your signature for some odd checkmark (like a stylized  Done check). You've been added. Protonk (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks ;)  7  14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Order of Civil Merit of Savoy

Hello. I noticed you have deleted Talk:Order of Civil Merit of Savoy, but can you please also delete Order of Civil Merit of Savoy. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sticky Bomb

Agreed :). Just say it in a thick cockney accent "the traasers wir a bit of a mess, thao!" Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Protonk. For his clear-cut, non-nonsense ability to encourage editors to become a productive member of wikipedia. Thank you for defending editors and making wikipedia a more enjoyable project. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: I was very impressed with the way you handled the situation sir. Have a great weekend. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A bit of schadenfreude

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's been edit-warring over Bulbasaur again, but strange this time: WikiProject:Pokémon has been struggling to delete it, and people from outside the project keep putting it back.—Kww(talk) 01:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• The CNR was odd. The wikiproject page acting as an homage to the old article doubly so. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy G7 in another's name

Hi Protonk. I am often frustrated by a speedy deletion's removal of history where I am seeking to understand a process. You just aided User:Cnilep in deleting Veiculo Lançado de Microssatelites as described a the RfD. I assume that you placed the {{db-author}} yourself. Did you refer to the RfD in either the edit summary or the template rationale parameter? (I'm just curious.) -- ToE 01:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand the question. Please try and explain again. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. From the RfD, I assume that you placed the {{db-author}} on Veiculo Lançado de Microssatelites. I did not realize that such tags were actionable unless placed by the author, and I wondered how you got around that. Did you link to the RfD in the template's "rationale" parameter? (I'd just look for myself if the history didn't disappear upon deletion.) -- ToE 06:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah. Now I get it. I probably should have worded the deletion rationale better. The person who nominated the redirect for deletion was its author and the redirect had two edits in its history, the creation and the nomination. G7 applies for explicit and implicit requests (such as blanking the page). Since nominating a page for deletion fits the 'explicit' side pretty well, I deleted it. Protonk (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah. Now I get it. You're an admin. (I missed that point.) In general, I assume that in cases where an admin is not watching, a non-admin, non-author editor could tag an article with a {{db-author}}, providing as rational a note and link to where the author had requested deletion (provided that the G7 conditional apply). Thanks. -- ToE 08:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes. That happens a fair bit in new page patrol/RCP. A user will make a page, realize something is wrong with it and blank the page (for a variety of reasons). The patroller should see this, make sure that the page meets the crtieria then add the g7 template to it. For a deletion discussion it might suffice to make this fact known in the discussion. Either way, the edit summary should make it clear to the admin why the tag is being placed. Alternately you may {{db-g7|Add the explanation right on the template}}. Protonk (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your question. Are you a sheep or a badger?

If those two animals mean that much to you, why don't you be both? That way, when you are feeling sheepish you can be badgering any accusations that you are just a sheep. And when you are badgering any opposition, you can use the excuse that you are also a sheep (but don't mention that you are feeling sheepish).--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD length

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Is_there_a_consensus_forming.3F.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

per your request

Just as a fyi, Lawrence added that pic of IS/LM you wanted for Keynes's bio. There's now a main article Post-war displacement of Keynesianism which mentions South America. Am still planing to write the Keynes and Maths article if you dont create it first. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Don't wait up for me. The only econ/math article I'll create in the near future is at User:Protonk/BTM, and I'm not sure when I'll buckle down and make it. Protonk (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Template broken?

It wasn't me, I swear... ;-)

The template people use to make an entry at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion/Current requests is either broken or they aren't using it correctly. Take a look at the last two requests to see the squirreliness. I'd fix it, but templates and I don't get along really well. :(--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• See here. It's kind of a struggle. I talked to Thumperward (a template heavy editor) and he basically said that if entries aren't filled out the template will fail gracelessly. I don't know what to do. I want people to be able to click a button and open a section in the right place. But I don't want a big mess if they do it wrong. so I disabled most of the template coding. that should solve some of the issues. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking at it. KISS is probably a good principle for this template, since it will be mostly frustrated people using it. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

me too

I confused by all the mystery, too. I thought a simple piece of paperwork to check out the suspicious looking unblocks was just that. Apparently not.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

recommend step back

Hello--I got what I was seeking out of the Economics & COI discussion (at least I think so, maybe someone else will explain COI to me in the future which will make me understand Gwen Gale's position). I don't know if you're seeking anything concrete, but the tone of your posts is hinting that you're losing your cool-cool which I much admire. Unless you're heading somewhere you think is useful in the discussion, I'd recommend dropping it, because I don't see it going anywhere useful by natural means. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt anything good will come of it. I guess I'm exhausted w/ people either engaging in circuitous argument founded in what appears to be a minimal understanding of the subject and I'm letting that show. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as aside - that debate is a perfect example of why most academics I know (and I'm one of them) *never* contribute to their own subject specialisms on wikipedia. Who on earth, after 15 or 20 years of being an acknowledged expert in an area, wants to spend their time arguing with some nutter who'd read a couple of websites and not understood a word of it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Selection bias dominates, but I find that the practicing academics (at least the ones that self-identify) on wikipedia tend to be pretty calm about disputes originating from a broad spectrum of understanding. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if WP lasts another decade or so and academics grow to realize that WP is a resource of first resort for their students (more so then they realize now). Maybe we will see more subject matter experts drop by to make changes. As for your general complaint, I think there is some truth to it though I will readily admit that plenty of folks come to wikipedia with the force of their degree behind them rather than the force of published material. Protonk (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cmflh

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests#Cmflh -- so true, but you've gotta admire the undeletion reason. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still trying to figure our what a "facebook universe" is. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about WT:RFA

Reading your later comments I get the sense there was a shift in your thinking after this. I could be wrong ... but is your current thinking that those are more like "things to watch so we'll know if it's succeeding or failing", or "reasons it can't work"? I'll watch in that thread for further comments. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'll make some there but the big complaint was about the suggestion of some lower percentage criteria at RfA resulting in promotion to assistant w/ later autopromotion to admin. Any plans that don't involve that will only invoke some of my complaints. It is also an expression of my wish that we could just hand out editprotected, block, delete, see deleted etc. to people who can handle those tools. Whether or not that is viable for all subsets of the admin toolbox is up in the air Protonk (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think you and others have absolutely made the case for a trial of spinning off some userrights, and I volunteer to do what I can to help the trial work. I think the ideas about coaching and lowering the bar (selectively!) at RFA are in addition to, not instead of. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

zombietime analogues

(I am cross-posting this to User talk:Protonk and User talk:Jayron32, because both editors raised similar concerns.)

Since this is a case of invoking WP:WAX, I decided to take this to your talk page, rather than further cluttering the AFD discussion.

The problem with blogs (and personal websites) is that they tend not to get a lot of coverage by mainstream media (aka "reliable sources"), and zombietime is no different than others. Oftentimes, coverage of blogs is not on the blog itself, but rather on a controversy kicked up by the blog. Take for example Americablog or Raising Kaine or Citizen Kate or Leonardo's Notebook or Politicalbetting.com, several of which have absolutely no significant coverage of the sites themselves. Americablog, in particular, set off two firestorms with its revelation of Jeff Gannon's previous career and the revelation that phone records could be easily purchased (re:Wesley Clark), but the coverage of the incidents never addressed the blog itself, only the controversies. If I were to run Americablog through AFD, would you participate in the discussion, and what would your recommendation? This is not me being POINTy, it's an honest question, because there are a lot of really crufty blog articles out there, and this one at least has significant coverage by real news sources, rather than self-references, blogs of dubious provenance, and dead links to god-knows-what. Horologium (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• The insinuation is that I would be more likely to hedge on claims about RS for a lefty blog than for a right wing blog? Eh. Maybe. But here's my view. Insofar as it is hard to find sources on blog that are reliable, that's tough. Maybe we ought to have fewer articles on blogs. The ones we do have tend to be supported by minimal RS and filled w/ claims from the blog itself about its own actions. Insofar as that is the case I feel that we ought to be very careful. Making those articles NPOV is almost impossible because the content itself stems from controversy or editor opinion. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what I intended, although I can certainly see how you could read that from the blogs I selected. (FWIW, there are many more articles on left-leaning blogs than on right-leaning; most of the non-notable or marginally-notable right wing blog articles have been nuked or merged out of existence, and I don't have a problem with that.) Americablog was the first blog that ran through my mind when I saw your (and Jayron's) comments about coverage of the blog itself, since all of the links in the Americablog article discuss controversies arising from the blog's coverage, rather than the blog itself. A quick look at the AFD (which closed as No Consensus) had a nice keep suggestion from DHartung, who came up with a couple of additional citations; they didn't discuss the blog itself, yet that was enough to tip it to a no consensus (the other two keeps were one who cited Dan, and probably the most notoriously radical inclusionist to ever contribute to Misplaced Pages. It seems that the standards have changed since then. I am going to see how this AFD plays out, but I will probably be sending the five articles I cited through AFD over the next week, one at a time, and work from there. There are a few righty blogs that I may tag as well, but most of them are pretty solid (Instapundit and Power Line, to name two examples). Horologium (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that Americablog afd was pretty sorry. I don't think that sources discussing controversies pursuant to an original cause count, for the reasons I outlined above. WP:N is there because we need sources to get articles which meet NPOV/NOR (not to mention V). Otherwise we are too reliant on editor interpretation and assertions from the subject. I will also admit to a minor bias. If the article was a 4 sentence stub with a short explanation of who/what/where/when instead of a run-down of sordid controversy paired with a giant lede image, I would probably have considered things differently. That's not a rule anyone should espouse or live by, but it is just part of how I see things (And is difficult to disentangle for me). Protonk (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you taken another look at the article? George and SlimVirgin have been working on the article, and one of the most obvious changes is a significant reduction in the size of the photograph in the lede.

On a totally unrelated note, I have a pair of questions for you. Is your username pronounced "pro-tonk" or "proton-k" (or something else altogether?) And should I use male or female pronouns when referring to you? Horologium (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Proton-K. Protonk (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple three things

Just some journals and papers that are related to the conversation on the project page also and - I suppose all these qualify as pretty mainstream. Peace. skip sievert (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Of course they do. But they seem to cover resource economics generally (as an outgrowth of Hotelling's rule), or in the case of the second journal the energy market (As in utilities). What is missing is a connection between those journals and the words in the vast see also list you have added to Natural resource economics. Look at the 'most cited' links in the two elsevier journals and you will get a flavor for their focus. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Productivity thoughts

Noticed the talk at RFA about productivity and couldn't help but chime in -- the increased productivity thesis actually strikes me as consistent with the graphed trends. Now, it's tautologically true that the pool of active admins do all the active admining, and thus if the pool shrinks, the average share of the work per active admin increases. But that's not a disturbing trend since if productivity is increasing they're not necessarily doing any more work. It could be that the share is increasing while the amount of work/time needed to complete that share is decreasing. Furthermore, it appears to me that the largest increase in admin productivity is coming from a few outliers -- namely the handful of highly admin active bots. Thus, while your average share of the workload is increasing, it could be the cast that your median workload is decreasing. In fact, it could be the case that the share and the actual workload is decreasing for the bottom 95% of admins. (I thought I saw some distribution data not too long ago, but can't remember where.) Another issue is that admins strike me a bit like lawyers, in that much of their work is not intrinsically needed, but they have created self-perpetuating processes ie as a collective, they generate enough demand to fit their numbers, regardless of the work truly needed.

I must say that as someone more frequently a reader than editor these days I don't encounter a problem with the actual product from a lack of admins. Aa deficit of editors and a surplus of drive-by taggers certainly sully the product and a trend I've observed is that when the two come in conflict, administrative processes tend to back the taggers -- if this trend is widespread, it would actually be beneficial to further reduce the number of admins, though I have no data to back up my observation (from a relatively narrow sample). I'm not going to weigh in at WT:RFA, but my own experience suggests we should be increasing content work and that increasing admins may actually be an impediment to this. --JayHenry (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as a fun exercise, if you want to scratch the economic muscles in your brain, consider if the world population grows to 10 billion by 2050 and then begins to decline by 2% a year. Now consider how many key assumptions about economics -- assumptions about job creation, housing policy, trade policy, education policy, entitlement policy, finance -- no longer make any sense. I did a paper on this once, and it occurs to me it's a rich area for study because it's a real possibility in the future and there's not yet much thinking on it. --JayHenry (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• A few replies:
  • Yes, I should have made clear my assumptions (or conjectures, I guess) about distributions. I think both productivity and time spent are increasing for those outlier admins as the total number of active admins decreases. this isn't too problematic until we lose those outliers. I have no idea whether more or less work would cause those folks to quite earlier or later, but they are gonna quit sometime.
  • Your point about reader impact from admin backlogs is well taken. Some of the stuff, like the temp userpages is work expanding to fill the time. I'll never delete a temp userpage. It's a total waste of my time. Likewise some other backlogs and some of the wp drama stuff. But some of the work is important. Important work that is easy and well structured (here is where some productivity gains are important...SPI, AIV and AN3 are much easier to handle than a few years ago) gets dealt with. Less important work or less easy work gets shuffled around. Sometimes that doesn't matter and sometimes it does. Though plainly really hard stuff like improving articles, offering peer review or checking sources is more backed up.
  • As for the last point...I dunno. Admins do less content work, but I don't know that we can entangle that from "folks who are inclined to be admins share a burnout arc". I was probably already burned out by the time I got the bit. That's sort of nihilistic, but it fits with my general pessimism about the future for this place.
• I mean, if I were a benign dictator, I would just ban people who caused trouble on nationalist or political articles or anyone else that groused too much. But then I probably wouldn't be very benign. :| Protonk (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

Thanks for being part of initiating that RFC. Folks'd been talking about it at least as early as when he came back, but I think a large deterrent to it happening was the drudgery of collecting diffs and articulating it all clearly (probably by design). Anyhow, thanks for your part in it. I hope it is productive. --EEMIV (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

conversation moved to WT:OUTING

Ikip (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: I guess I'm a little disappointed

Ah now... I wasn't trying to hurt anyone, so I have to apologize if I came off strong. A Nobody - or anyone - is a perfectly valid subject for an RfC/U, when someone has a legitimate complaint. And there are a lot of legimitate complaints somewhere in that dogpile. AN really did a good chunk of what people are bringing up, and I'm never entirely sure what his motives are in some of what he does. I like the guy for the good he does, so I won't speak ill of him, but like with Pixelface he would be a much better crusader for inclusionism if he could keep the crap down instead of inviting trouble and making enemies. And I knew something was coming because he was pushing way too many buttons, so color me unsurprised that an RfC/U was held in his honor. :)

There are a few differences between AN and Gavin's case. With Gavin's second RfC, hardly anyone showed up to defend him. 2, maybe 4 people at most spoke their mind in his favor, and not very loudly. We had a laundry list of complaints yeah, and probably went overboard, but the "charges" here would take a few pages to print out. And it wasn't a partisan thing along the include/delete lines as far as I could tell, because we were able to keep it focused on his behavior - thanks in large part to you. This one is just a big mess, and there is a lot of "inclusionists stick up for each other, and deletionists pile on the lot of them" sort of element going on here that really didn't happen with Gavin's. Honestly, I do mean it, ArbCom would probably do a lot more good here than a three ring circus. I don't mean to be hurtful, but it's how I feel.

I was initially going to come up with something much like what Peregrine said, but I thought the better of it, and gave in when he came up with the succinct version of what I was thinking. ;) I don't know, maybe I'll come back when the dust has settled a bit and see what is left over and maybe I'll see something of more value than what I thought I saw. BOZ (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, and this would have been and still may be just as ugly or even worse. It's the neverending battleground, man. Ever wondered why I've purposefully never edited WP:FICT or its talk page? You can lose your soul getting involved in that shit. I'd rather do what I came here to do. BOZ (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's partially why I stopped editing FICT myself. But it's really frustrating to attempt to show that someone is contributing to a toxic environment and have responses along the lines of "an RfC won't work, the environment is too toxic". Apologies for bursting in on your talk page. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a "request for comment" - I commented, and I leave it up to others to judge the worth of my comments. I don't want you to think, in any way, anything I said was directed towards you. Going from past experience, and what I've seen you write on the RfC, I think you have your head in the right place. I may not agree with all of your viewpoints, but I have come to respect them. Maybe you'll prove me wrong, and something substantive may come out of this. It's just that a good percentage of the people who rushed in to push their viewpoint aren't helping your cause, and I hope you can see that. If/when the Merridew RfC goes live, it'll be more of the same except from the opposite perspective, and I suspect I'll want nothing to do with that one either. BOZ (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, and I overreacted in that post on your talk page. I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, water under the bridge, hope it's mutual. Have a good night, and may tomorrow be a better one. :) BOZ (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well I guess I have a lot of trouble just offloading responsibility. If one substantive difference between Gavin's RfC and this one is the relative absence of defenders then I can hardly say that would be grounds to excoriate the original dispute summary. And I don't know how to get around the "inclusionist/deletionist" sitcking together other than to present the most compelling argument possible. I have a lot of trouble believing the argument that fewer diffs is better. One argument can be made that we are shotgunning things, but trust me, this RfC has been pared down from its original size.
• As far as I'm concerned, we don't do any good by throwing up our hands and saying "well, there is evidence of disruption but this is bout to fall on party lines so I'll endorse an opposing statement made largely on party lines". That's a shitty thing to say, but if there really is no recourse apart from arbcom then we have to address that. I don't think we are that far along. Maybe I'm totally off base. Am I? Protonk (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wish I knew, man, wish I knew. This one was going to be a mess no matter how well you handled it on your end. Honestly, I haven't even read the whole of the complaint, because I haven't had the time to sit down with it! Yeah, sometimes the TLDR version is less helpful than a succinct and to the point version. :) We had to do the same thing with Gavin's; if you thought we had too much "and then he did this, and then he did this, and he's smelly too" then you should have seen the previous drafts! And the falling on party lines is why I specifically didn't want to endorse anything on there; some of the supporters of the complaint made good points here and there but I don't want to look like like I'm supporting them in whole, and I likewise felt that a lot of the opposers were overlooking a lot of things so I didn't really want to support them either. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't I guess. The problem is you have some 15 or 20 mad as hell people that don't want to listen to each other, and if they keep that up the RfC will accomplish nothing. I hate to say that ArbCom is the next step, but it may be. Who knows; Gavin has left us almost completely alone in the nine months since his RFC2, so we'll have to see where AN takes it after this. Maybe just the threat of ArbCom will shake him up and make him fly right. BOZ (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NPWatcher

I've been trying to use NPWatcher, but it just doesn't work. I log in as normal, I get a list of new pages, and all of the buttons. I can see the pages in the window and can navigate and edit manually via NPW. The problem comes when I try to click any of the automated tagging buttons. I get an error message: "Log in error - unable to log in. Please report this error!" I have left a bug report about the problem, but don't seem to be getting a reply. I'm logged in to NPW and Misplaced Pages, so I don't see what else I might need to log in to... any ideas? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 14:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Huh. I think I spelled it right. I don't actually use NPW (I have a mac). I just noticed a while ago that it was linked from WP:PERM and folks weren't responding quickly enough to requests. Try going to User:Martinp23 and following the instructions there to email the author or you could find an active user of NPW and ask them if they have had the same problem. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah

That reminds me of a mentor I once had. I just find it absurd that people don't want to use biographies. It was once thing in Nicolo Giraud where the most amount of information on the boy was 2 or 3 pages in any source, and a book on the history of pederasty mentioned him with references (along with other critics either responding to or outright refuting the idea following it), but that essay doesn't even hit those requirements. I find it odd how people's understanding of an expert in a field has deteriorated. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to be a function of the internet (or at least that's what I gather). We (online denizens) seem very skeptical of expertise, for good reasons but also for some not so good reasons. There is some assumption among users of online forums that the expertise of someone like Robert Caro or Rick Perlstein can be ignored if it produces a conclusion at variance to one that I can drum up in a usenet posting. That there isn't some benefit from poring over decades of archives and tapes and conflicting accounts. This thread on WP:V captures some of that. A neat book about those dynamics is Cyberchiefs, though I recommend you read everything but the wikipedia section, which isn't terribly enlightening. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

I requested NPWatcher permissions two days ago and haven't received any kind of contact since then. I was just wondering, if you aren't too busy, whether or not you can take a look at my request. Thanks!

Regards, Gaelen S. 23:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Daily Pioneer - Sandhya Jain discussion

I can summarise the issue quickly. I am writing here again because the discussion is still growing like crazy.

• The discussion is about an article published in the Newspaper "Daily Pioneer" and is being used as a source for the Sathya Sai Baba article.

• This source - 'Daily Pioneer' was extensively discussed here in the WP:RS. for a week and was declared as a reliable source by outside wikipedians. This source has important refutations to Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba.

• In the earlier RS discussion it was mentioned that removing this source 'Daily Pioneer covering Alaya Rahm trial' will be a BLP violation to the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba'.

• Some users who did not want to comply with the earlier recommendation started the above discussion. They did not provide correct links and facts. Their problem is that the article mentions "Robert Priddy's name".

• Who is Robert Priddy?. Robert Priddy is an 'Anti-Sai Baba activist' well known in th web. He started edit-warring in the wikipedia 'Sathya Sai Baba' article as User:ProEdits since his name is mentioned in the above 'Daily Pioneer' article and wanted this source declared unreliable.

• In the RS board you will see the arguments and counter arguments about this source.

• We cannot change a source from reliable to unreliable because its being opposed by Priddy and his group. Misplaced Pages publishes what other reliable sources publishes.

• Robert Priddy's group has been opposing it inspite of the administrator MField mentioning in the talk page that the source cannot be declared as unreliable for that reason and they are desperately trying to declare this source as unreliable in the RS board. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Languishing report

WP:ANI#Casasgaspar seems be sitting completely unattended.—Kww(talk) 11:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Handled by EyeSerene.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Afd, WR etc.

Thanks for your post, I just answered. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WT:ECON

I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

hey

Hi! I understand why you think that I may be a sock of guitarherochristopher but I can assure you that I am not, Not only do our writting styles differ but we have diffrent intrests. I love history, I have always liked it since I was a kid, I also have a nack for micronations, Alaska and the western USA, Im quite shure that guitarherochristopher does not like any of those. and guitarherochristopher made his designed his userpage after I made mine look like it is. Now I can tell you that we both apparently like Coldplay but the similaraties end there. If you have any other questions or comments about this you can either answer on my talk page or your if you like (just send me one of those you have new messages on Prontonk's talk page things) see you later!--Coldplay Expert 23:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

VG Data compliation

How goes the standardization of the VG data Randomran started? Since he hasn't shown up it has kinda stalled and I wanted to finish it up so we could discuss its impact as it was very near completion.陣内_Jinnai 02:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your block of WebHamster

Was your block of WebHamster in response to this,, or were you responding to this?

--Malleus Fatuorum 07:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with this notion that in order to be legitimate, a block must happen right away. We're all volunteers, and sometimes there aren't very many people watching the store. We try to solve problems as they come up, but this doesn't always mean it happens right away. I think Protonk did a good job of making his block message clear. This is a pattern of bad behavior, coupled with an apparent lack of interest in correcting the problem. Friday (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Richard_Gere_and_the_gerbil probably explains the train of thought reasonably well. I'm unsure if there are implied questions or assumptions here, so if you have any questions which you might like to ask explicitly, then just go ahead and do so. I can't promise you will like the answers, though. Protonk (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I'd like the answers any more than you'd like the questions, so I'll keep my opinion to myself for now. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

An aside

I believe that you mistakenly thought me to have retreated because you mistook (and perhaps still mistake) why I regarded it as important that academic and peer-reviewed publications not be declared without empirical support to be most reliable. The steadfastness of the commitment of other editors to declare either just that or to go further to utterly discard all other “reliable sources” ought to strongly suggest to you that I was onto something, that I didn't just mistake the intention of the wording, and thus why there is no grounds for inferring some sort of retreat on my part. —SlamDiego_←T 11:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• You just seem to be arguing against a proposition that no one is really advancing. In that case you "win" by default. I see the basic statement "peer reviewed sources are more reliable, all else equal" as pretty benign. "Reliable" is a term of art specific to wikipedia and doesn't really have any connection with the capacity of the underlying subject to produce truth statements. There is arguably a related hierarchy in Cultural studies, though the relationships are less strict. I have no doubt that some editors want to legislate a problem away (where that problem is marxist criticism or austrian criticism or just general criticisms of formalism), but that's hardly new and it is neither a penetrating insight nor a death knell for the attempted guideline. I mean, this whole discussion basically stems from a dispute between LK and VT over a few articles. But that aside I happen to think MEDRS is a great guideline and where possible, other guidelines like it should be written. Insofar as we can make some net progress toward a guideline like that, I'm happy. Protonk (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The statement that you see as benign isn't what's being pushed or opposed. If you put it up as a suggestion, the very same party who are instead pushing the statements that I oppose with try to effectly remove its protasis (“all else being equal”). The fact that the problem isn't new doesn't mean that it isn't there and manifesting itself with pronounced intensity. —SlamDiego_←T 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your statement at RFAR

I wanted to let you know that, in a post on my own talk page, I have pointed others to your statement at the current RFAR page, because I believe that you have, perhaps unintentionally, discussed a problem that the current Arbitration Committee identified and has been trying to address in various ways throughout this year - that is, the issue of appropriate and proportional response to unacceptable behaviours. It was a very interesting story to read, and I thank you for sharing it with us and with the community. Risker (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll reply briefly on your talk page in a bit. Thanks for the comment. Protonk (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

REFUND archives

Yo, I wonder if you know what the setup for archiving of fulfilled WP:REFUND requests is? There's an archive from April to July at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion/Archives; I can't find where the more recent ones have gotten too, but I noticed you archived some of them lately. Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure I just deleted those. I'm not convinced that refund needs an archive system (though if it does I would just set a bot up to archive requests after X days). I may have intended on setting up a bot at the point when I "archived" those, but didn't follow through. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. I was looking because one of the refund requests I had seen recently came up in an {{adminhelp}} request, but I couldn't find where it had been dealt with. I think an archiving system would be relatively easy and without much cost; might bring it up at WT:REFUND at some point. Cheers for the response,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think fram is ahead of us both. There is something on the talk page about best practices. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but edit warring continues on the project homepage. LK (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll leave a note there, but I've taken the project page off my watchlist. I have no desire to endlessly argue with Slam or argue at all w/ skip. Protonk (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on WP:Civil

I am a bit surprised at your comment in support of Physchim62's out-of-context harassment. Reasonable discourse requires politeness, not claims that I propose to "pander to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience". Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't particularly see the trouble if he feels that your proposal does just that. He certainly shouldn't be constrained from saying it for fear that someone might be offended. You have sought review from a number of admins and arbitrators on this matter, so I suggest you just sit back and see what that results in. Protonk (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd expect an Admin like yourself to wish to promote discourse, not dissension; it seems pretty clear to me that dragging the Case/Speed of light into a perfectly simple RfC is not relevant to the separate issue of how to use a one-line Edit Summary, and the phrasing "pander to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience" is inflammatory. Perhaps you are expressing a misplaced loyalty to Physchim62? Brews ohare (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can expect me to promote the encyclopedia. Where that involves privileging discourse, I will do so. The theory of yours that I have some "misplaced" loyalty to Physchim62 seems to mainly involve jumping to conclusions about my motivations. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nagging Time!

Hello. Since you seem to be active in approving users for NPWatcher, I was wondering if you can head on over to the NPWatcher page and approve (or perhaps disapprove) my request for the tool? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're bored...

...List of recessions in the United States could use a glance over from someone familiar with general economics. I've been looking at it so long my eyes have started to bleed. --JayHenry (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Signing error?

Hi

I think you typed too many tildes here.   pablo_hablo. 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks much. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please revert

Please revert this. I've started what I think will be a more productive discussion.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)