Misplaced Pages

User talk:Protonk: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:03, 12 April 2009 editEEMIV (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,995 edits →If you have a minute...: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 06:13, 14 April 2009 edit undoJack Merridew (talk | contribs)34,837 edits →Yon post of yours: new sectionNext edit →
Line 561: Line 561:


...would appreciate an outside perspective on the content at ] -- particularly, 1) whether it is appropriate to cite an apparently non-notable artist's personal web page and 2) whether an assertion about such an artist's work is an appropriate step toward asserting notability. The discussion is underway at ]. --] (]) 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC) ...would appreciate an outside perspective on the content at ] -- particularly, 1) whether it is appropriate to cite an apparently non-notable artist's personal web page and 2) whether an assertion about such an artist's work is an appropriate step toward asserting notability. The discussion is underway at ]. --] (]) 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

== Yon post of yours ==

It seems that thread has gone quiet and I'm fine with that. He wasted a day of my life yesterday. You commented on how I (or others; ambiguous) might see you, so I'll comment here: I don't see you as exactly neutral here, but I also certainly do not see you as biased. You seem a reasonable person with whom I don't fully agree; no problem, I view you as being fair. I find the notion of that rescue template edit being disruptive or intended to cause trouble rather on the silly side. And it seems my explaining it has a lot to do with the thread going quiet. A number of the usual inclusionist editors have long been trying to connect my block to fiction and AfD; it's not connected, it is a long story that's out there for the finding if you care to read on it for a week. I am not trying to police A Nobody, but I'm not going to be gagged; that it the core intent of their little attempt at gaming the system re me. Cheers, ] 06:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:13, 14 April 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


blocked user

I appreciate your looking into the issue with Fabartus (talk · contribs); I wanted to bring up this user's reply for attention, and did so here (WP:ANI#further intervention?), but wasn't not sure if that was the right way to go about it (cerating a sub-section). — pd_THOR | 17:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hey Protonk, would you be able to restore User:Grsz11/Review archive for me. Thanks much, Grsz 01:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I missed you. No worries, thanks anyways. Grsz 02:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems you just missed me. :) Restored. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems that way. I actually do need User:Grsz11/Review archive deleted now. Thanks, Grsz--Review 03:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. Just clicked the red link like a jerk. :) Protonk (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem, sometimes I even confuse myself. Thanks for the help! Grsz--Review 03:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Elements of fiction proposal

Thanks for taking the time to explain and answer my questions on some of the reasoning for the proposed guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

fict.

Simulated annealing? It'll take me an hour to assimilate that! But tell us what your really think of flagged revisions .. and the Boss? ... drove to Cleveland in Nov. 07 to see him (my sister's friend bailed at the last min.) First concert I'd seen in 10 15 <*cough cough> years. Good stuff. Back to the topic, so normally - if everyone can agree, reach a consenus, then a third party comes in and ok's it to be a guideline or policy? Is that an ArbCom thing, or just other admins that haven't been involved in the process? Actually, this is all kind of interesting stuff. I feel like being part of drafting a new Constitution or something (even if it's just as a fly on the wall) ... part of history thing. (got a chuckle out of the Austin Powers thing too by the way). — Ched (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I try to laugh a bit, though sometime you have a really hard time determining when the right time to crack a joke is. Haven't seen the boss in concert, though the wif has. As for the third party coming in, I don't know how it is supposed to work. My guess would be we get to a point where we can push this poor, bedraggled proposal no further or where we stop getting 'new' comments. Then we would (I assume) drop by AN (I would prefer WP:BN but those guys are pretty keen to stick to only 'crat things) and ask for some neutral admin to close the debate. By that point if things are still up in the air, we shouldn't expect this to be a guideline. We should really only expect it to be a guideline if by that point most of the reasonable objections have been satisfied. It's probably the kind of thing we will "know" when we see it. Protonk (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You seemed to be online, so I thought I'd ask: .. While checking new pages, IP edits etc. - I saw Tara Chatterjea. Looking at the editor's name, I wondered about COI, and what should be done next. I've never tagged anything for deletion (except my own stuff), and don't know how to do COI warns. I've done some Vandal warns, and AGF warns - but this is different. If you have a moment, could you point me in the right direction. (by the way - the "know it when we see it" (film related court case) - to quote Johnny Carson "I DID NOT know that"! - you're a walking DYK guy - bet you kill on Trivial Pursuit). Thanks, if you're busy - that's ok too. — Ched (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
COI is tough. Misplaced Pages:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest gives a pretty good run-down. For a case like that, where the person writing the article probably isn't notable, this is harder, because the discussion means the article will eventually be deleted. My advice is to avoid the user warning templates and write something out. Be nice, note that the account name and name of the biography are similar and ask if they are editing their own article. Link to, but don't belabor, COI, and try to see if they will react at all. A lot of times people don't even return to accounts that they made for individual edits (there is a chart somewhere of the edits/account and the tail is looong). If they respond on their talk page or your talk page, talk to them about WP:N and WP:BLP. You can look at template messages for wording, but I would avoid using them for discussions like that. I write out most of my block messages for the same reason. Can't beat human to human contact. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I did look at his/her history before I asked, and noticed (s)he had done other work - that's why I asked you. Knew it was a topic that can quickly get out of hand. I guess you never know how deep the water is until you jump in, so I splashed about a bit and left him/her a note on his/her talk page. Appreciate ya takin the time to help an old man Protonk - I'll be sure to vote for ya at your RfA ... eh? ... Oh, ok, sorry I missed that - well when you want to become a 'crat, let me know ;) (noticed you're ex-Navy - sincere thanks for serving our country!) — Ched (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Besides I just made coffee and fixed phones while I was in. :) Gimme a shout if you need some help on any other topics. Protonk (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

your "speedy" decline

Thank you for taking the time to process my speedy request on Mildred Bylane. I wanted to let you know that I re-added the speedy request, as removing a series of redirs created by Special:Contributions/YouTubeFan124 is part of the page cleanup process for List of Cars characters. In essence, that user (and a few others) have added every Cars character from video games, books, and toy lines...along with redirects and additions to disamb pages for each as opposed to keeping the list to those characters that advanced the plot of the film. Please reconsider your decline; if you do still feel the same, then I'll go through the normal AfD process for all those redir pages for minor, non-notable characters instead (I ask as other admins did process previous speedy requests this weekend). Thank you.SpikeJones (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading. Sorry to bother you. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hang on. You haven't bothered me. I just haven't responded yet. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok. My first question is, do the redirects obscure any other use of those specific terms? My second is, are they likely search terms? My third is, do they otherwise cause harm? I understand that the characters have been removed from the list per NOTDIR, but if they actually are characters in cars, then it doesn't hurt to have redirects. If the cars character is the most prominent use of the term (read: first few pages in google), if it is a likely search term (No quotes, parenthesis, or other wiki peculiarities in the title), and it doesn't mislead the reader (if the character wasn't in cars), then we can have a redirect. Redirects are cheap. You'll notice I deleted Bert (Cars) because it wasn't a likely search term. Protonk (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Answer to your first question: probably not, other than the fact that the characters may be part of the Cars universe, but they aren't either (a) in the film, (b) named in the film, (c) a notable character that advances the film's plot a la the currently debated Notability:Fiction proposal...and therefore not listed on the destination page in the first place. The only use of those obscure names is on products such as die-cast cars, of which pages have been removed from WP as well. Using your suggestion of Google, Googling "Mildred Bylane" results in WP being the first 2 current results, out of a total of 7 entries (the majority of them all pointing to the named toy, which isn't listed in WP). While redirs are cheap, if the target page doesn't contain info on what the search term is, then why have it in the first place? On a slightly-related sidenote of users who have made similar edits, this guy was banned on Jan-9-09, and this guy with similar edits/interests began editing a day or two later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpikeJones (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, we aren't in the business of enforcing canon. At least I'm not. If Disney wants to make a toy car that wasn't in the movie or make a straight to DVD movie with cars that weren't in the original and someone creates a redirect, it doesn't really bother me. As for WP:FICT, as an architect of that compromise, I'll not it doesn't say anything about redirects. Even if we determine that some character isn't crucial to understanding the series/film, we would probably end up with that character's name as a redirect. I understand your complaint about the target page not having the info that the redirect suggests it might. That is a worry. But not much of one. that could be fixed with a line somewhere noting that Disney made a proliferation of those characters and that not all are mentioned on the page. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I do see your point, even if I don't agree with it entirely. What's your opinion on the possible sock? SpikeJones (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That's fair. I'll take a look at the two editors in a sec. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Quacks like a duck. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh. So... then what's thought/policy regarding reverting edits made by editors who get blocked indef? Not trying to find a loophole to your above reasoning, but thought I'd ask anyway. SpikeJones (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Policy says that if an editor is banned their edits made in defiance of that ban may be reverted and pages they create may be deleted. See, variously, Misplaced Pages:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, {{Db-g5}}, and Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep criterion #3. I am of the opinion that this is a recommendation, not a requirement and where it is at all inconvenient or illogical to follow through with, it ought to be ignored. Protonk (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) One thing I have neglected to do, especially after you have been helpful and overlooked my initial disgression, is to formally apologize for reverting your speedy decline, which I knew was questionable to do at the time I did it. SpikeJones (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't notice you did that. Well...bad editor, bad!  :) I don't mind, so long as you know that anyone may decline a speedy (aside from the page author), including an IP editor. And normally when a speedy is declined in good faith (unless it is something like a G10 or G12), the deletion policy requires that it go to XfD. So the real "trout slap" goes to whoever deleted the page on the second speedy. :) Protonk (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Some minor corrections made due to dyslexia. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You might or might not be interested

...in WT:Requests_for_adminship#I.27m_going_to_regret_this. I imagine it will seem pointless to a lot of people, at first; my idea is not to explain or justify it too much, that would spoil it. And if you want to form your own committee, or volunteer to help other people who want to form a committee, by helping them write position statements, back them up with diffs, or find allies, feel free to sign up as a volunteer at WP:RFACOM. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More pages need protection

Bambifan101's socks have set their eyes on List of The Mighty B! episodes, List of The Mighty B! characters, Talk:The Mighty B!, Hotel for Dogs, Hotel for Dogs (film), Talk:Hotel for Dogs, Talk:Hotel for Dogs (film), Balto (film)', Talk:Balto (film), Robin Hood (1973 film) and Talk:List of The Mighty B! episodes. All of these pages need indef semi-protection. I tried contactng other admins but neither of them are online. Elbutler (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I've semiprotected the article pages for 3 months. I'm not going to semi them indefinitely nor will I semi the talk pages. This guy really, really needs a life. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Econ freedom again

Could I ask you to take a look at the text I've proposed. As is usual in this process, VT has objected, but I think it's a fairly accurate implementation of what was discussed.JQ (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool tool of the month....

From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit to userpsace

Protonk, please let me know (preferably on my talk page for unleaded software) why this edit was made: (rm hangon tag and article living in user talk space) and what I need to do in order to make this a verifiable posting. I have web site sources available. Unleaded Software (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SO much!

The only thing worse than an obvious troll is one who insists on posting libel. Thanks for shutting that guy down. I was considering doing likewise when I saw his "protests." Much obliged.  :)--PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bambifan's newest target

"Danny Phantom", i believe a protection is in order. Elbutler (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Redwater Health Centre

The user Ttonyb1 keeps on saying and putting a speedy deletion tag on the article and it dose not fall under CSD G11 and he has threatened to block me please can you solve this as quickly as possible. Kyle1278 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to Thank you for removing the tag and i am going to add more to the article. Kyle1278 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Ok. I declined the speedy but it is pretty likely that the article will get deleted at Articles for deletion. If there are no reliable, independent sources covering the subject, we normally won't have an article on it. Also, the author of the page (that is, you) should never remove a speedy tag placed in good faith. You can remove procedural deletion tags, but not speedy tags. I know that the different deletion processes can be a little confusing, but that's an important step. If someone places a speedy tag on one of your articles, you must wait for someone else to review it. I hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok and Thank you again for defending the article in the discussion.
      • I'm not likely to actually 'defend' the article on its merits, as it doesn't appear that it is covered in reliable sources. However, noting the nature and timing of the nomination is very important. Good luck finding some reliable sources on the subject. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Redwater Health Centre

I saw your comment on your disappointment with the New Page Patrol and have to say I am disappointed with your comments. The comment should have been directed only to me concerning my actions and not as a comment concerning an entire groups actions. If you wish to comment on my actions, it is your right to publicly do so. Secondly, you could have very easily contacted me to help me understand the issues, but did not. My issues with the author's actions related solely to the removal of a SD tag, something that I tried to voice to the author. I contacted the author of the article to let him know of the issues related to removing the SD tag. I enjoy the cooperative native of Misplaced Pages and hope to see it continune. Thanks and my best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I really don't know how you come to the conclusions you have. My comment was on the tagging itself and the AfD nomination. Both were truly sub-par. A comment about the CSD may have not been germane but a comment about the nomination certainly was. Participants at AfD deserve to know that the article existed for about an hour before being sent to AfD. They deserve a fuller and more persuasive nomination than "non notable hospital". That comment was germane and appropriate. Protonk (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI - I was not questioning your commenting on the validity of nomination and I fully support your "full disclosure". I was only commenting on the comment directed toward the group of New Page Patrol. I have reviewed the process we went through and have identified things that could have been done differently or were done lacking forethought - by no means am I innocent in this "adventure". My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Redwater Health Centre

I have added a great deal onto the article since i first made it earlier today and now i think it meets the standard's to stay here on Misplaced Pages it took awhile to dig up info but i did. 22:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Kyle1278 (talk)

YouTubeFan's new identity?

Continuing along the chain of thought from earlier, check out this new user: Special:Contributions/HannahMileyFan. Edits seem similar in targeting the same pages as Special:Contributions/YouTubeFan124 had, with similar edits being made. Examples include: this edit vs this edit, which re-created a redir that had been speedy deleted earlier and a continuation of creating character-based redirects. The Hannah user also cropped up the same day the YTF block went into effect. Your thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Check this out. My first thought is that you may get some traction filing a report at WP:SPI. I can help with fairly straightforward WP:DUCK kind of sock blocks (and this one quacks), but it may be better to get a checkuser in on this to see if we can find sleeper socks or hardblock an IP address behind this (Assuming they aren't on a dynamic range). Protonk (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay... never done that before. Hopefully I did it correctly. Feel free to take a look yourself. Thx... SpikeJones (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
There used to be a template (on the old RFCU) that basically said "I don't know what I'm doing and I would like a clerk to help me." I always used those. I'll have a look in a little bit. Protonk (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Must have worked. Thanks for pointing me in a direction. SpikeJones (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultramegasuperstar

I put his unblock request on hold pending communication with you, as it seems to me he did indeed stop edit warring after the warning. Is there anything else I should know? Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheapfriends

The block was partly for sockpuppetry, but for also disruptive editing. S/he was trying to change any mention of "Northern Cyprus" to "North Cyprus" (including using cut-and-paste moves), and that's why I blocked. Spencer 23:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's why I db-ed Flag of North Cyprus --Blowdart | 23:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
So all of those are copy/pastes from "northern cyprus" articles, right? Protonk (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah fair enough. I didn't honestly know what to do with them; flagging seemed the most appropriate for me, plus begging with ARV in addition to waiting for the sock puppet folks to wake up this evening and confirm/block. --Blowdart | 23:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. It's just me being overly cautious. I'll grab some of the obvious ones soon. It just jumped out at me as odd so I asked some questions. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your optional question

Before I answer I do have a query to put to you about the two articles you've cited. I don't recall creating them, or being overly involved with them, except for possibly some light involvement in the latter article (i.e. Oink). Can you slightly elaborate on what you're asking so I don't go on about something that you don't even care about? Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked the same article, Arthur Baldwinson, Australian Architect. The article wasn't created by User:Nja247, User Nja247 actually placed a csd tag on this article. See here. Of course all this happenned more then two years ago. Garion96 (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops. Can't believe I got that mucked up. No wonder s/he doesn't remember creating that article. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Obscure IP Vandal Talk Pages

You don't really check these regularly, do you? I couldn't help but notice you consistently reverting every edit I made. Unless of course you were merely checking my user contributions, in which case you're a poor sport. Oni Kimon (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I've "reverted" two of your edits. One was made to a userpage of an editor who I blocked. It wasn't even a reversion, just a replacement of multiple "indef" templates with a single one. The other was to the talk page of an IP address, removing an unconstructive and inflammatory "warning" you left for any editor who may use that IP address in the future. As a note, that IP address also edited Patriotic Nigras, an article on my watchlist. Is there a problem? Protonk (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy declined

Which editors are currently revising the files? I may be able to help with the rationale, if I am not as unsure about how to go about it. -BlueCaper (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry, planned to follow up with that in a bit. The "free use" template looks like a muddled attempt to explain why it would be ok to use this nonfree content (I didn't check to see the length of the song, if it is over 30 seconds then message me back and I'll probably delete it). I think we would be better served by turning that into an actual fair use exemption and keeping the content (assuming that the songs meet the NFCC). After that is done we can explain the nature of the problem to the uploader, if they are still active. Protonk (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I am the uploader. Both files are over 30 seconds long. I already told the Wikipedian who would have deleted it speedily that I would not stop the deletion at all. However, if if we can get the files to stay with proper rationales, then we could at least try to fix it before defacing it from Misplaced Pages. -BlueCaper (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ooooh. I'm sorry! Ok. Here's what you should do. Upload a clip that is ~30 seconds long of each songs. Make a fair use rationale for each, making sure that it is justified. Then link those new clips to the articles and post a G7 request on the old files. Protonk (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
What is a G7 request? -BlueCaper (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my speaking in abbreviations. G7 refers to a speedy deletion criteria where the author and sole editor of a page may uncontroversially request that it be deleted. I was suggesting that you could upload a clip under a different file name, make a fair use rationale, then delete the original song. Alternately, you could just upload the clip over the old song and make a fair use rationale. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Request from Stevencgold to review my new article

HI. I would like you (or someone you would recommend) to review the article I just wrote that is in my user page (Stevencgold). The article is in economics and is titled "EXAMPLES OF MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION USING AN ECONOMICS SIMULATION GAME FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING". I would like to publish it as part of another article, either a section in the article on "Simulation and games in economics education" or a section in the article "Monopolistic Competition". WHAT DO YOU THINK? I would prefer a reply right in my discussion section, but will check back here as well. THANKS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevencgold (talk • contribs)

RE:Quack

Thanks. preload a sig in a template? Huh? I guess I don't know. Sorry. Simon 01:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"I know you are but what am I"

It's back. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm shocked...really, man I don't know what to do. He's smart in the sense that no collection of evidence is ever going to look convincing to someone from the outside and that anyone who has the context to understand those edits is "involved". If it gets bad enough we can fire up that RfC again. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:KWesting

She and I have also exchanged a couple of e-mails. I have no problem with you unblocking her, as long as it's made clear that she's to avoid self-promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

A thread which may concern you has been started here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin abuse of tools. best, –xeno (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Trust Art

The project was presented @TED on Friday, 2/6 - interview/pix @ http://blog.ted.com/2009/02/palm_springs_on_1.php

And a few press mentions: FAST COMPANY: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cliff-kuang/design-innovation/trust-art-stock-market-art-projects URBAN DADDY: http://www.urbandaddy.com/nyc/2204/Trust-Me PSFK.com: http://www.psfk.com/2009/02/trust-art-a-stock-market-for-cultural-renewal.html

Formal press release: http://www.pr.com/press-release/131548 http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=171578&Itemid=96

My Vandalism Report

You removed my anti-vandalism report with the comment of "Send Ireland/The Troubles stuff to AE or AN/I. Not really blatant vandalism. Not saying it is ok, just doesn't fit this board.". WTF? So firstly, it's not blatant vandalism? Eh? So by that logic, I can go around calling everyone names, and cos I'm Irish, the board won't deal with it as vandalism? This had nothing to do with Ireland/The Troubles issues, rather he was using anti-racist remarks on pages, and it is vandalism. I can't help but feel a little annoyed at the way this complaint was dealt with - I'm sure you did what you thought was right though, but it's a little lazy to call this "Ireland/The Troubles" related just cos I'm Irish and he made anti-Irish remarks.... --HighKing (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Protonk, I've finally found an excuse to introduce myself. I've seen your sig around quite a bit, and one recent post you made got me to thinking. It was on one of the admin boards, and centered around rollback use/mis-use. After reading your post, I went back and re-read the links. It didn't seem to be that big a deal to me at the time (hence my comment on the board), but now you have me questioning it. Since the edit was not really vandalism, I'm thinking it was a mistake for the user to use the rollback maybe. I got rollback a month or so ago, but I don't really use it much, half of the handful of times I did try it were either in the test box or my own user pages .. lulz.

I noticed a very serious tone in your post (at least as much as text to screen will allow), and I wondered if you thought at least one of the edits was a poor choice of the rollback function. It's not that I want to start using the ability (I'm content with TW, and the slow methodical read the page first method). It's just the very seriousness that you approached that post (vs. the Terminator "head for the choppa" one) made me sit up and take notice. Thanks for your time... a pleasure to meet you (so to speak) — Ched (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DELINKING DATES

No problem thanks for letting me know. Its about time someone put the brakes to it. Honestly I never agreed with delinking the dates and I only did it because thats what consensus at time chose to do. Cheers.--Kumioko (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for weighing in at my RFA. I see you around AFD quite a bit, and your support means a lot to me. Somno (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference from Nationmaster.com

Sorry, I don't know nationmaster.com is the mirror site of Misplaced Pages, since I couldn't find any articles related to Hong Kong Light Rail stations before I created them in Misplaced Pages. I think the articles of Light Rail stations are worth reserving because they are the main components in Hong Kong MTR systems. I tried my best to write them as accurate as possible. You may refer to MTR Website http://www.mtr.com.hk/ to see the information. Ricky@36 (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Egalitarian Dialogue

Hey Protonk. I have just edited this content egalitarian dialogue that you made revision past year. I think that article is better, and I would like to ask you if I have to add something more. And the last doubt is, when article is improved, who could delete messages of "to improve" in the main page?. Thanks in advance for your attention.USA2006 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ee-ellh

Please examine edits of Ee-ellh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and block as disruption-only account. I have closed the ED AfD. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankspam

Hi Protonk, Many thanks for your support in both of my RFAs, I appreciate your trust. There's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. WereSpielChequers 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A look into a poorly justified article-gutting led me to its now indef-banned author, and your polite but firm attempts to talk sense into him. I am grateful for your efforts to create a more peaceful and considerate Misplaced Pages, our primary and poorly-realized need now that we're past the easy part of creating the largest reference work in history. --Kizor 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bics is a spamusername and always has been

His very first edit, at 21:36, 2 April 2006, was about BICs and his books on the subject! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I just don't believe the guy gets it; he's an s.p.a. determined that his idea is notable, and pushing it all the time. Read the weasel-wording of his statement (to paraphrase, "I won't edit about this notable topic until Misplaced Pages admits it's notable"). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for informal intervention

I was hoping that you could mediate a small editing dispute over Swing Low, Sweet Chariot#Gestures that sometimes accompany the song. Here is a comparison of the edits

GordyB advocates preservation of a list of gestures that may acompany the song when sung by fans if rugby union, whereas the community advocates their removal. The issue has come up before, however, at that time, the objection was to the sexual nature of the gestures. I am an advocate of the gestures' removal and preservation of the content regarding the gestures' relevance, because the gestures' presence has some implications of commonality, which has not been asserted. GordyB asserts that the gestures are notable and cited, and my counter is that the citation denoting the gestures' existence is not an independent source, and therfore does not confer notability to the gestures themselves. GordyB and I have not violated 3RR, but this edit war needs to come to an end, so I was hoping your influence as an administrator could settle this, as discussion and the community apparently cannot. Tealwisp (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bust a Groove citation...

How about it? Umm... Yeah, I believe the cited article was merely a mirror of earlier Misplaced Pages edits. But I also have a good experience on the game but how would I cite it or the least option I have is to find another article, which discuss these matters factfully?--JCD 08:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • You could cite the game itself or you could cite a review of the game which mentions that. I was just removing links to that wikipedia mirror generally (I did over a hundred that day). Wasn't trying to specifically get at that article. I just removed the link and added a {{cn}} tag. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A Nobody 01:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fast Inverse Square Root GA

I've reviewed your GA nomination for Fast inverse square root, and placed it on hold. Yellowweasel (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:UncategorizedCategories

Back in September you added directions to the new database report page. (See Misplaced Pages talk:Special:UncategorizedCategories) It looks like that change got reverted. Could you redo it? --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind -- the redirect is back. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Donadio

I think your block of Donadio may be prescriptive rather than preventative, as they only reverted their contributions once so far, and did not re-revert when various editors undid those actions. I think a well worded rebuke would do more to help bring the editor back to being a useful contributor. I also note that they are very frustrated with, for example, being asked to find sources which state that white people in a picture are actually white (used to illustrate white Argentinians). This may be a case of user's actions may be more a symptom of pointy disruption rather than a cause. I say this because I see they did not get blocked during over a year of editing, but have just recently received 3 blocks. NJGW (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see there's an ANI. Well, I'll just leave you with my view point then. Note that the reporting user is the one who Donadio cites as instigating the decision to "leave" WP. NJGW (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I stand by that block. He was moving through his contributions and rolling them all back. Rather than have to worry about him doing it tomorrow or the next day when he logs on, I blocked him. That way he can explain what he is doing or state that he doesn't intend to do it again. Either way is fine with me. Protonk (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I only want to point out that he did return and when he saw he had been reverted he moved to the talk page instead of continuing the same route. He was most definitely being pointy (even on the talk pages), but again this may be a symptom of how he was treated. I just wanted to make sure you had the whole picture. NJGW (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. I'm not convinced that was permanent, but I guess opinions can differ on that. Thanks though. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fast inverse square root

Updated DYK query On February 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fast inverse square root, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's got to be one of the best new articles I've read in a long time. It was fun to read and I'm not even a computer person. --TungstenCarbide (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Brink

Glad I can help. Rename it if you like. Ikip (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Peachy
Your welcome :) Ikip (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Also see: Category:Rescued articles advanced to Good Article status. Ikip (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
both up for deletion now. Ikip (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Lord...Protonk (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you really suprised though? Like my quasi-barstar :) Ikip (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
No, not really. :| Protonk (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Kuwaiti companies

What revisions did you look at when you made your DRV comment and what changes did you notice? I see no significant changes during the debate, but my eyes have been known to fail me on occasion. =- Mgm| 10:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Sure. Remember that us seeing two different things probably has more to do with what we are looking for rather than what we physically see. :) I am pretty lenient with regard to lists. So long as the intersection isn't strained or trivial, I'm okay with one of two kinds of lists: Category-like collections of notable entries and much more prose-like sourced entries. In other words, List of famous wearers of handlebar mustaches would probably need sourcing, as the person may not be notable (save for their mustache). List of American economists should have only blue-linked entries. The first kind of list (category-like) is similar to and almost redundant to categories, but I'm ok with that (As are current guidelines/policies)--categories are for editors, lists are for readers. If we are ok with those kinds of lists, what would make one unsuitable for inclusion would be if a preponderance of the entries were red-linked and/or the list itself was irretrievably spammy. The 17 June 2008, at 14:56 revision fits that definition. The revision immediately preceding deletion is better, though I think all of the redlinked entries should still be improved. Does that make things a little more clear? Protonk (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy)

I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RMHED

Hi Protonk, thanks for your message. I thought this fellow deserved a chance to speak given the length of your block. My sincere hope is that the entire situation calms down soon. Best regards. -- Samir 04:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Protonk. That was indeed the effect I wanted. -- Samir 04:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Stoob

This is just to let you know that I made the section "stoob"... . Anyway, just letting you know I bonked my head on the keyboard several times trying to fing a source.

gfjytgfddfgkhghtx jlfdgj kjfgdd

Ow.

I couldn't find one for "noob" except what was already provided too. Finding appropriate cites for various internet terminology is very hard. Can you restore it for a while (I can, just trying to be polite) while I'm looking for a source? (If I forget to, remind me). Errm, thanks for taking the time to read this babble.

7h3 3L173 (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • If you think you can find a reliable source, I have no problem with you restoring it with a citation needed tag. One of the reasons I removed it (apart from it being unreferenced) was that "newbie" tends to attract a lot of flavor-of-the-month terms for noob. They usually just get appended to the bottom and are never really referenced to much save some forum posts. So I try to be proactive in keeping stuff off there. but if you think you've got some sourcing, please go nuts! Protonk (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing table

Yeah, I have a perl script that makes those. I would like to put such things on toolserver (polishing them up so that they actually work without my supervision), but at this time I have not been approved for a toolserver account, so I run them from my laptop. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

thief - LOL

You stole my question! LOL. Seriously though - if you find the answer, would you drop me a link?  ;) — Ched (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps more precisely, when the script is available to us editors, would you let me know ;) — Ched (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the trick is available to the heroes among us. :) Protonk (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
LMFAO, alas, my programming skills are 20 years outdated - I'm now limited to understanding it (and on a rare occasion tweaking it), but I can't speak (write) anymore. And by the way, I admire and agree with your stand on these secret pages - and I have a huge text file on my HD that can confirm that! (just not willing to shoot myself in the foot by posting it). I'm wondering how many of the "wack-a-mole" proponents have considered the danger in refusing to grow and accept the young new ideas. Maybe they just weren't around to see the downfalls of companies like AT&T, Britanica, AOL, Netscape, IBM-OS/2, WordPerfect, Lotus, ExciteChat, Hudson, ... well, you get the idea. Anyway, keep up the good work - you're on the right side (for whatever that's worth). ;) — Ched (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 02:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user remains active

User:Ibrahim4048, whom you blocked temporarily, remains active and continues to edit-war on Kazakhs, including use of objectionable language on Talk:Kazakhs. Can you help? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wayfarers Role-playing Game

I'd like to post an article about this Wayfarers_(role-playing_game), but the page has been blocked as it was Repeatedly Created. I've read the deletion discussion, and believe it might have been misguided. Apparently, the reviewers assumed this was a home-brew game. It is sold commercially and has ISBNs for both paperback and hardcover prints. Referencing to multiple outside sources is no problem, which appeared to be an issue. I've found articles to similar games. I'm pretty sure I could improve upon what might have been deleted, and would like to take a crack at it. -Thanks.

  • Ok. I'll unprotect it. Protonk (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Remember, since this was deleted previously, your first edit to the page (that is, creating it) needs to include at least one independent source to the subject. Otherwise you can expect it to be previously deleted as a "G4." Let me know if you need any old copies of the page. When you have recreated it, I'll restore the history. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Protonk. Will do. No old copies are necessary.

Anti-copyright image

Sorry to bother you, but I wanted an opinion. I saw your comments on the anti-piracy cartoon on anti-copyright. That image is also on The Pirate Bay. Frankly, I think the image is offensive and simply goes too far, while adding nothing to the article. Am I off-base?Objective3000 (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't know about the particulars of the PB page. Is the author of the cartoon related to PB or the pirate party in any way? I was under the impression that there was some extra reason to have it on that page. If there isn't, I would start a discussion on that talk page (I only noticed the anti-copyright discussion because it was on my watchlist). Protonk (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I know of no relationship and he lives in New Zealand, not Sweden. It was posted on the site for a couple of days. But so have many offensive images. It seems to me that the image goes way beyond the text. I have discussed it on the Talk page, but have basically been told to shut up.Objective3000 (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The article says it was on the frontpage for the pirate bay. Arguably that is more of a connection than in anti-copyright. though I have no idea how tenuous that is or how marginal the author is. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Contested prod

Did you have a reason for contesting the prod on Stephanie Shaver? I believe that the guidelines say "Editors should explain why they disagree with the proposed deletion either in the edit summary, or on the article's talk page. As a courtesy, notify the editor who initiated the PROD by placing a {{Deprod}} tag on his or her user talkpage." But I've put up an AFD anyway. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Not really. The author is on wikibreak and I thought that sources might exist. Their presence or absence in the article is irrelevant. So I guess that's the reason. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh. What does "the author" mean on a wiki? The article creator is 209.16.216.180. Do you know them? Well, there's a AFD now anyway. Thompson Is Right (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It's the person who you sent the notice to. I have elonka's talk page watchlisted. I assume that you are asking me "What does "the author" mean on a wiki?" because you are genuinely interested in an answer, and not because you are trying to be cute. If you aren't, don't bother. I have 0 patience for that on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by being "cute" but either I didn't make myself clear or you chose not to understand me. 1. Don't do things for no reason. 2. Do follow recommended procedure. 3. Don't help your friends assert ownership over articles. 4. Do get your facts straight. 5. Please. Thompson Is Right (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This conversation is over. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability (Fiction)

There seems to be some progress being made towards redrafting the guideline. Most of the arguments for a permissive guideline seem to have been countered in the sense that they have been found not to be viable. My attempts to obtain a compromise earlier this year seem to be leading towards a slightly stricter applciation of WP:V for fiction that should discourage topics which are only the subject of in universe plot summary, trivia and cruft. A recent post at WT:FICT#The rules seems to make this clear. Can you provide some cool and clear support towards drafting a compromise that is compliant with existing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: You got me here

Yeah, that was indeed funny. I'm not from an English-speaking country, so at first I thought "that's a very strange name, indeed", but I figured it out almost immediately upon clicking the link. I forgot to introduce myself, I'm doing a GA review of DKP and I've currently placed the article on hold due to a few minor things that have to be sorted out. Admiral Norton 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'll make a good admin. Anyway, DKP passed, so congrats on your new good article! (and help out at the GAN backlog if you have time; they're giving away some barnstars) Admiral Norton 12:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect request for User:Edgarde/tools

I've not read most of the relevant discussion this afternoon, so I haven't really formed a new opinion, but since an editor to whom I guess I cannot refer prior to my reading all the kerfufflage has asked politely, I would like User:Edgarde/tools to be unprotected so that I can remove the disputed material. This is not the end of this, but I really dislike having my sub-page locked. My apologies for leaving keyboard long enough for this nonsense to drag you in.

I'll take this to WP:RFPP if needed, or if my page is still protected when I get back. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

as one of the people involved in the discussion, I support this request. DGG (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice it has been unprotected, which is good. I'm sorry I didn't note this on your talk page, but I tried to make clear in the protection log and A nobody's talk page that any admin reversing the protection would be acceptable to me. I'm sorry that it came to this anyway, it is always frustrating to have two other users editing your userspace. Let me know if you need any help. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Somedays, I despair ...

... of ever getting people to evaluate sources, instead of just count them. In WP:Articles for deletion/Them Terribles, I listed every test in WP:BAND, argued that the article failed them, and people are using PR Newswire(!) to argue that the article should be kept? I don't mind people that try to argue that local sources are good enough, but it really bothers me when people don't even take a moment to realize that they are quoting a local source or an advertisement.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The newswire thing is certainly worth a chuckle. I don't know what to say about the rest...if you want worse than that, just nominate some Dr. Who thing for deletion. :) The only real defensible argument I can see is that local sources shouldn't be excluded. I'm not making that argument (nor are most people, rather than just asserting it), but one could. Protonk (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, again

Within hours of getting unblocked, User:DreamGuy is up to his old tricks. He just removed a bunch of consensus edits (and some other ones) on the Ambigram page and removed a lot of comments on the Talk:Ambigram page that he disagreed with (mostly, perhaps all, mine). I'm leaving this message on your talk page (and User_talk:Daniel Case's and User_talk:Hersfold's) because of your involvement in his recent block. Thanks. RoyLeban (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at it, and it's not looking too good, more of the same WP:POINTy crap. I want to get you and Daniel's opinions on this before I do anything or take this to ANI, though. Hersfold 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know a good solution that doesn't involve escalating blocks. I'll probably be off until tomorrow, so don't wait for feedback from me. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fancy taking a look at something?

So I got an oppose from an editor with eleven contributions... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like an opinon on civility

I'm mediating a case for MEDCAB, and a particular user, User:OrangeMarlin is being "unorthodox," for lack of a better word, in the discussion. I would like your opinion on whether I should request a block. Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Aspartame controversy is where the most offenses are, and there's a bit on the native discussion page. Tealwisp (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Seems to be moot. I crawled by the AN/I discussion about that user (imortale or whatever) and saw the progression. My guess is that OM could have disengaged or deescalated (instead of ratcheting things up), but I'm not sure that an after the fact block is the best outcome. the game OM is playing is dangerous...basically it only works to call someone a POV pushing sock or SPA if they are those things. If they are not, people come crashing down around you. That's uncomfortable for us to watch, because we want actions to be right, not outcomes. But it usually isn't worth the mess. I don't know OM personally, but I have seen several situations like this and they lead me to be very cautious. That probably isn't the answer you were looking for. :( Protonk (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, advice is exactly what I was looking for. The discussion is current, I'm not sure if you realised that, but if he continues the behavior, is there some way I can prevent him from disrupting the discussion without a block/ban? Tealwisp (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I see that the discussion is current, but the impetus for the discussion has been removed...at least for a week. The easiest but least satisfying way is to back off. Again, that falls squarely into the category of things which you don't want to hear (and that I hate saying), but it fixes the problem fastest....or at least it fixes the proximate cause of the problem. It clearly doesn't stop OM from being a jerk. Protonk (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, I don't not want to hear it. I came to you because I know that you give honest advice. Tealwisp (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Space Wolves AfD

... was here, as a co-nom. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

FYI, I started a talk page section about an edit you made to the BLP policy.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thumperward's RfA

Well put. I rather thought that there could be no dispute on those points generally, and I suppose I am disquieted by the fact that a corrective was necessary; the resting of even part of an oppose on Jimbo's assessment of a candidate's participation in a content dispute in which both have been involved reflects an understanding of his role here that is fundamentally inconsistent with the nature of our enterprise and that follows—or at least seems to follow—from a hero worship beyond which we had moved, I'd thought, across the past two years. Good on ya, in any case. Joe 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring?

Er, that would mean that no one is actually discussing, and simply reverting to a preferred version. I am both discussing, and my edits offered alternative rewrites (without agenda), and even started a discussion regarding the edits. You will note that, as usual, there is no discussion emitting from the other editor. Thanks for protecting the page; it might be the right impetus to help guide the other user to participate in discussion. You might want to keep an eye on the discussion, so the other editor can keep some civility. - Arcayne () 18:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Reverts on the page are reverts. It takes two to continue to fight over a preferred revision. I'll take a look at the discussion, but I've previously blocked DG so I won't be looking at it with fresh eyes. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just though I would point out that I followed protocol here, having been the subject of DG's wrath previously. Twice is pretty much all I was going to revert with him. - Arcayne () 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I respect that. Stuff like this puts people in a bind. You can't ignore it, complaining on article talk pages when a change is made (or a second revert is made), and then go to an admin or a noticeboard when the content is put in a bad state--that will likely get rejected as a "content dispute". but at the same time if you try to either prevent changes or force a conduct issue (which in some cases is the only real way to get some relief) you run the very real risk of either becoming the problem or being painted as the problem. It's not an easy solution. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

The Socratic Barnstar
For explaining very well why adminship debates should be about the user, not the 1,630 other sysops. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Article Rescue Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Protonk, for this work on the famously deleted Dragon kill points which has now become a featured article, great job. Ikip (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review mentoring?

Hi Protonk - I saw you were listed at WP:Good article nominations/Mentors, with an interest in history. I've just tried one of my first GA reviews, for Themistocles, and wondered if you could give it a once-over if you have time. Many thanks. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving?

Hi Protonk, hope all is well with you.

I am curious about something. If a discussion goes stale and no one has continued it for three months, is there some kind of protocol about archiving the discussion? And what, if anything, should be done if someone objects to archiving the stale discussion?

I ask because it was the archiving of a particular article talk page and the subsequent heated discussion there which was one of the main points of contention that ultimately led us to put together Gavin's second RfC. Now, the same user who tried to archive the stale discussion last year has attempted to archive it again today, and Gavin has reverted it.

I would think that if the prior behavior continues right off the bat, and the artificial deadline that we gave him (April 1) is almost here, this does not bode well for the idea of peaceful coexistence.

The resumption of conflict on the Dan Willis article started in November with some edit warring over the notability template, as well as a revert war on the article talk page, with Gavin suggesting that NihonJoe was attempting to "stifle discussion by placing contraversial subjects in archive" by archiving a seven-month-stale discussion. Discussion continued on the talk page after that, with several changes to and removals/restorations of the notability template, prompting Gavin to state that he was "getting the feeling that one ore more of you are somehow connected to the author. The new photograph is very professional, and I am becoming concerned that there may be some conflict of interest. Are either of you employed by the author, or anyone commercially connected with him? The photograph suggests to me that a publicist or some sort of publicity seeking initiative may be behind the recent additions to the article." The promotional picture was then removed, and replaced with one taken personally by an editor. A while later, after some heated discussion, Drilnoth assented that notability had yet to be adequately established and replaced the notability tag; this prompted Gavin to comment that the placement of such a tag by one of us was a "major breatkthrough" and an "important milestone" (which he insisted were not sarcastic comments).

Dan Willis probably hasn't been the most contentious article in the long dispute with Gavin, but the conflict there was bad enough, and likely was the worst in the period leading up to the RfC. While no action needs to be taken for the reversion of the talk page's archival, I am concerned of where this will lead us in just a few days' time. Dan Willis was the first article Gavin edited when he came off of his previous D&D hiatus, and as I remember it the most contested of the articles he was involved in at that time, and I fear that history is about to repeat itself. While most of what I'm talking about is not recent, there is a lot of history of repetition behind it. I hope I'm not just making a mountain out of a molehill, but with Gavin the mountain is made up of hundreds of very small well-placed hills. BOZ (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Heya. :) Well, that seems to have moved on to some form of perhaps unusual attempt at mediation, at which point the squabble died down pretty quickly. And Gavin didn't quickly jump back into doing anything with D&D articles, nor any hostility, and hasn't had any contact with the WikiProject yet, so my fears seem to be unfounded... for the moment. :) BOZ (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive user is back

Hello. Do you remember that disruptive user, who said he was going to open a legal threat against Misplaced Pages and that he was leaving the project, then he started to reverte all his "contributions" writing "Reversing all my edits, since I don't want to be associated to Misplaced Pages in any way"  ???

Actually, he was pretending to be leaving Misplaced Pages, because he is back now with the same disrupitive attitudes. He is once again blocked for 24hrs because of vandalism, but I'm pretty sure that he will come back soon with the same behaviour. I'm here to ask you to watch this user, because I think he is feeling free to vandalize Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Opinoso (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I have no idea either man. Ottre 06:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember. You asked me something on IRC? Ottre 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Just trying to follow up on my notes from editing last year. Ottre 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition of canvassing

I've been staying clear of the whole lgr crowd for the sake of my own health for the last month, but "Is there an automated way to votestack a debate?" "Here, let me make you a list of email addresses" is rather more blatant than the usual circus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting Dream's words in the subsection title is really deceiving Chris, especially since he never even mentioned "email" anywhere in the message. I appreciate if you refactor this "blatantly" deceiving subsection title, it makes a "circus" out of this whole situation.
Messaging (not emailing) everyone that was just in a AfD about a merge is not canvassing. As long as Dream contacts everyone who was in that AfD.
This is exactly what happened in: Talk:Tom_Tucker_(Family_Guy)#So_we_need_a_merge_discussion, in which Protonk got an message to: User_talk:Protonk#Merge_discussion_at_Talk:Tom_Tucker_.28Family_Guy.29 Ikip (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
But that wasn't what was asked for. The question was I want to send a message to everyone who voted Keep on a recent AFD. That's not "everyone".—Kww(talk) 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of including that tom tucker comment was. Taking everyone who voted keep in an AfD and sending them a message about a merge discussion is canvassing. Don't do it. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Kww, in my eagerness to help, I missed the "who voted keep" statment. I will advise Dream via email not to do this (for the same reasons as stated below). I have now removed the entire section. I included all the editors in my list before it was deleted, not just keep editors. I am at a loss why Dream would ask me in on a talk page to do this when he knows editors who would love nothing more than to see us banned regularly monitor our talk pages and edits.
Again, the "Is there an automated way to votestack a debate?" "Here, let me make you a list of email addresses" subsection title is false. But I don't expect anyone here but me to ask Chris to change it. Protonk was calling for my head a few months ago...
In the case of Tom Tucker, the editor notified everyone, not just "keep" editors, similar to the list of links I provided. We all know this is acceptable. Ikip (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks. You two edit conflicted my first response, which was to say that this kind of dispute is almost always not worth the trouble it takes to resolve it. Remember, just as there is no single piece of content worth alienating a good content contributor, there is no single piece of content worth distorting processes and causing people to distrust the distribution of viewpoints in discussion. To be crass, trust in processes is like virginity, once it is gone, it doesn't come back. I know you are very attuned to the impact that poor discussion practices at AfD have on new users. Please consider that canvassing (and the appearance of canvassing) can have a similar impact. (Edit conflict comment: Good lord, I was thinking of protecting this page so I can get a word in edgewise.:) ) Protonk (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to send a message to everyone who voted Keep on a recent AFD, to inform them of the merge discussion. Is there something I can use to do that automatically, it grabbing the user name of everyone who posted on the AFD page, and then allowing me to send them all the same message at once? Dream Focus 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the entire thing. Notice the big bold title there? I meant everyone. Didn't even notice my wording. But I clearly said twice in that bit, first in the title, and then in the context, I was going to contact everyone, not just the keeps, which most people were. I believe when people vote to keep something, they don't want it gone anyway, with a redirect to somewhere else, and it rude to do things behind their back. Dream Focus 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't quote the title. I quoted the body text. I'm sorry that you erred in your wording. I'm also sorry that you interpret merger discussions as some rude affront to a keep vote. I do want to reiterate that it should be perfectly reasonable to interpret your body text as meaning what Kww interpreted as. If I put a post on my talk page whose title said "I am concerned about certain editors" but whose content read "I would like to block every editor left of me on the inclusion spectrum", I don't think I would have much ground to be outraged at someone who interpreted my post by reading the body rather than the title. Since Ikip has given you the answer (another answer would be to use AWB rather than excel..the work you would have to do is the same, but the tool is different) and you appear to not be interested in canvassing per se, I don't see the merit in continuing this discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I write something, then don't notice it when I look over it again sometimes. What is AWB? And I do believe most people who say keep, would be upset if the article wasn't kept, a merge done without them noticing it, that what I was thinking of mostly. But I will contact everyone, that only fair. Dream Focus 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:AWB is "auto-wikibrowser", a windows application that can automate some tasks. You can write scripts for it or use scripts and plugins written by others. It can use regular expressions and has a fairly reasonable set of tools. You have to get a bot request to do any unmonitored edits, but if you are watching the preview screen and hitting the "commit" button, you can operate it without anything more than a change to your monobook. there is a lot more info on that page. Protonk (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Again Dream Focus, be very careful what you say on wiki, you are not only jeprodizing your editing priveleges, sometimes you are jeprodizing others too. You know these pages are monitored and very public. As I understand it, you can message all people in the Afd, but not just the "keep" editors. Messaging only the "keep" editors is stupid, because your edits are public too. I am sure it was a mistake.
thanks for the valuable suggestion about WP:AWB protonk. I agree with you: "Please consider that canvassing (and the appearance of canvassing) can have a similar impact." Ikip (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. From the looks of it, my page does appear to be quite monitored. Though I submit that absent actual canvassing 'editing privileges' aren't in any jeopardy. Especially from any action on my part. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to pile on to your page protonk. But this seems a good location to remind Dream Focus that selectively choosing to inform only editors with more than 25 edits about an AFD is not a way to circumvent the canvass rules, either.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Please keep all unrelated things where they belong. That is a totally different issue, where major contributors of an article were told of a discussion concerning the article, and asked if they wanted to help find some references. No need dragging that over here. Dream Focus 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that selectively informing all major contributors to a large article is a good idea, and more practical than messaging everyone. In fact, one the hold-ups for requiring notification of all authors has been to find an automated way of identifying the major contributors--but that is a combination of number or edits and substantial nature of the edits. DGG (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If a program could count their number of edits, and how much was added by them, this information already presented in the article's history, then if they meet either of those two things, they could be added to a list to contact. Since many of these articles being deleted have been around for years, most editors aren't going to keep them on their watchlist. Otherwise their watchlist would have far too many things appearing on them to keep track of. So this would be the best way to do it. Dream Focus 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Um...the article history already has links that provide a list of contributors with edit counts (not "information added since that's impossible to determine through any automated means). Same tool is used to inform "major contributors" of FAC/FARs/GARs, etc.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you can read the information, you can calculate it. I learned how in various computer programming languages long ago. It presents it on the screen, green number showing how much text was added, and this number can be read in, along with the name of the editor before it. Simple enough. Dream Focus 16:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it can calculate characters added. It can not calculate actual information. Someone fixing grammar or sentence structure might add 20-30 characters in a paragraph, while not adding any actual new information or content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Glad to help - let me know if you want a second look and I can try to be more alert when reading the code heavier parts next time ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>° 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't be necessary. I'll attempt to better explain those or streamline them. Trouble is, that was the most fun part of the article to write, because it wasn't just 'he said, she said' summary! Thank you for the attention you paid to it, which wasn't deficient in the least. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I gots me an image, yes I does

Heya, I was wondering what sort of protocol I need to follow for the following situation. I have an image, given to me for use in Misplaced Pages by the widow of a recently deceased individual who has an article in the wiki-en. I don't work a lot with images, and with all the kerfuffle about images lately, I don;t need someone to come along and accuse me of uploading images with bad licensing. Your assistance would be invaluable, Protonk. - Arcayne () 19:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for OTRS. See WP:COPYREQ for instructions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear lord, no no. You don't need OTRS for that. Trotting off to post on Arcayne's talk page... KillerChihuahua 20:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] 22:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

John Emilius Fauquier

Hi. I hate to have to tell you this, since you worked so hard on that article, but there seems to be a copyright problem with the foundational edits. I've left a note at the article's talk page explaining. I wanted to let you know personally, since I would imagine you might still have interest in the article. I know if I had saved it from death and brought it to GA, I would. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Protonk's Day!

Protonk has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Protonk's Day!
For being one of our most sane and experienced admins,
enjoy being the star of the day, dear Protonk!

Signed,
Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a minute...

...would appreciate an outside perspective on the content at Treecat#Real_world_influence -- particularly, 1) whether it is appropriate to cite an apparently non-notable artist's personal web page and 2) whether an assertion about such an artist's work is an appropriate step toward asserting notability. The discussion is underway at Talk:Treecat#Buss_treecat. --EEMIV (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yon post of yours

It seems that thread has gone quiet and I'm fine with that. He wasted a day of my life yesterday. You commented on how I (or others; ambiguous) might see you, so I'll comment here: I don't see you as exactly neutral here, but I also certainly do not see you as biased. You seem a reasonable person with whom I don't fully agree; no problem, I view you as being fair. I find the notion of that rescue template edit being disruptive or intended to cause trouble rather on the silly side. And it seems my explaining it has a lot to do with the thread going quiet. A number of the usual inclusionist editors have long been trying to connect my block to fiction and AfD; it's not connected, it is a long story that's out there for the finding if you care to read on it for a week. I am not trying to police A Nobody, but I'm not going to be gagged; that it the core intent of their little attempt at gaming the system re me. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)