User talk:Protonk/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Involvement

One of your favorite topics is back at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black/Workshop#Classification_as_involved_administrators. —Kww(talk) 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"attack" page

I just wanted to clear that up before somebody else tried to get a few extra miles out of this pathetic charge by using the old trick which goes "because part of this statement is factually incorrect therefore the whole statement must be invalid". pablo_hablo. 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I understand. Sorry it was terse. I really did mean "my mistake". Protonk (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

no worries. And I had "valid" instead of "invalid" in my post above, maybe it's time for a break! pablo_hablo. 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT

I think when your protection expired, an indefinite semi-protect also then expired. Not sure if you want to semi it again. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Drilnoth indef semi'd it. You might want to ask him, I don't really have a preference. Protonk (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't actually care one way or the other. I just saw that your action ended the action of another admin and so I thought I'd check to see if that was your intent. Hobit (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at WP:FICT

I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hi. Could you take a look at Iravan, please? Thank you. Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't worry about it. Made up my mind :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

John Galt

The Wikipedia Project: Objectivism made the decision to redirect. Please see the links posted to the discussion page. Thank you. Ollie Garkey (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you very much for your kind words and support of my RfA Protonk. Of course you realize this means you get added to my short list of people to pester every time I have a question. ;). I consider you to be one of the true leaders here, and the support was indeed a pleasant finding. Thank you very much. Best — Ched :  ?  20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

wow

You have the patience of a saint my friend. ;-) — Ched :  ?  06:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Do we mean this? Does seem a bit hair trigger, doesn't it? Might be a little unfair because I am ascribing patterns of behavior to that editor that I see in like editors (i.e. editors whose uploads and edits are primarily copyvios). But I've found that ferreting out non-free images marked as free is enough of a drain on resources that an immediate response might be justified.
• Of course this really proves the 'arc of admin evolution' from cautious newcomer to grizzled vet, doesn't it? In my defense, I'm pretty sure that I've been this cynical since I was about 12. ;) Protonk (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of a different thread on the same page. The never-ending saga of Ryulong vs. Mythdon and the battle of the Power Rangers. Sometimes it just seems like there is no end in sight. ;) ... hmmm ... some of that cynicism must be rubbing off .. lol. ;) — Ched :  ?  00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Leave it to me to assume that praise wasn't praise. There really isn't an end to any of that stuff. Ryu's comment "lol editors and characters" almost sums the whole thing up. The whole FICT debate really took the wind out of me--something so important to the project (but, it should be noted, not important to the rest of the world) and we couldn't end up with a happy compromise on the subject. No real heroes on either side of that debate (just like there aren't any heroes in this new manifestation of the notability wars). Protonk (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit that one of the main reasons that I joined WP was to work on Stargate and Star Trek articles. I quickly learned that anything related to WP:FICT could be a "spend your time at your own risk" type of thing - and have since moved on to things like NASCAR and BLP issues and gnome-like work. I did get a link from someone (Phil maybe?) about a newer proposal that wasn't quite as ... ummm... difficult to work with? I'll have to look that up, and maybe see if we're getting close to some agreements on the whole thing. To be honest, I'd likely support ANYTHING at this point - just to get some consensus and move on to building the 'pedia. I usually prefer to "include" or "add" material, but I'd be grateful just to know the rules at this point ... lol.

Ryu and Myth kind of remind me of my brother and me when we were young. Both love the same things, but just can't agree on how to work on them. If Myth would "delete" a little less, and Ryu would "ref" a little more - but, that's likely a a pipe-dream. I guess they enjoy the battle. I'd imagine a lot of folks are rather tired of it though. Nothing here puts food on the table, provides for the family, or even offers any security. I just can't find enjoyment in bickering anymore myself. But, to each their own I guess. — Ched :  ?  07:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Machina

Hello--Rumor has it that there used to be an article on the economist Mark Machina (possibly as Mark J. Machina). As an admin, can you check if such existed and was deleted? CRETOG8(t/c) 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ask User:SlamDiego, he created Mark Machina as a redirect to Mark J. Machina, but the Mark J. Machina article never existed. I'll poke around a bit more to see if there are other copies somewhere, but slam would know. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, SlamDiego was the one who told me he thought he'd seen the article previously, but couldn't find it now--or when he created the redirect. So, he's the source of the rumor. (See our discussion.) CRETOG8(t/c) 21:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, nothing links to Mark J. Machina except our two talk pages and very little links to Mark Machina. You might want to ask User:Ryan_Utt--the latter is on his to-do list. He doesn't appear to be active, maybe send him an email? Protonk (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Economic forecast

Hey Protonk, just worked up an article on recession shapes -- my first article in too long. Has economy fatigue set in for you yet? If not, read anything good lately? Hope all is well... --JayHenry (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, actually it's my second article in the last month or so. Also just did one on the Magazine cover indicator. Can you think of anything to add to either? I've been meaning to flesh that second one out a little bit more and need to find some places to link it... --JayHenry (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't done much on wp recently either. I'm hoping to get a big block of time together to start an article on ratings arbitrage (I think there is some material on it scattered here and there in other articles), but I haven't yet. I'm reading a book by Donald A. MacKenzie about financial economics (or, specifically, a sociologist's view of financial economics). Bits and pieces are fascinating, namely chapters on Black-Scholes showing how the practice of finance converged with theory precisely because the theory was inserted into practice. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd like to thank you for your quick response and contribution to yesterday's request for semi-protection of Physical Education. Thanks again, Peace and Passion (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery

The same editor keeps showing up in different guises to in my opinion take possession and disregard (super disruptive) the Wage slavery article. This person has a long history of sock puppetry and disruptive ax grinding on this particular article. Could I bring this to your attention for some kind of action on this issue? Here is a recent comment I made on the talk page in regard to this persons edits... [1] - Thanks, skip sievert (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Good faith

Hard though it may be for you to believe, I haven't purposefully edited anything directly related to Obama (since the restrictions were put in place) and I don't think I've made a single edit of substance to any content directly related to him or his presidency. As president, he comments and has some connection to lots of subjects, so I'm sure it's possible to make connections to some of the many articles I work on. If you ever have a concern you're welcome to note it courteously on my talk page. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right. It is hard for me to believe that you've never edited anything related to Obama. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the restriction? Yes, that's correct. I haven't edited his article or any other that is about him. And let's be clear, the restriction was put in place in the first place because I refused to back down and let Wikipedia be censored by POV pushing morons. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really care to hear your opinion about why you were sanctioned. Protonk (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point of my post here was to let me you know that you're expected to abide by our policies and guidelines. Try to do a better job in the future instead of acting like an arrogant jerk. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "POV-pushing morons", I'm supposing (AGF) that his highly neutral comments about Obama on user talk pages don't count as violations of his topic ban: [2][3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on this - it's me that's the POV-pushing moron. CoM has never shown the slightest hint of POV-pushing or personal attacks. P.S. I have a used bridge for sale. Some assembly required. In as good a shape as when it was dismantled 2 years ago. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I love ya BB but something tells me that I'll never hear the end of it if I step in to enforce an arb restriction on CoM. For my money that first one is borderline but the second one (it's on his talk page) isn't a problem. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Come on people--if I can handle CoM's jokes (just look on the top of my talk page) then surely you should be able to also. (The "Dutch" reference in the second comment is to me and to Vrouwekerk, which he alerted me to on my talkpage.) I get it if you don't think he's funny, but he's not writing that for you--unless he thought he was being followed. A joke (in a USDA context) on someone's talk page, big deal. Pulling these things out of context really isn't helping the cause, which is to cool things down. That is the change we can and should accomplish, if you'll pardon the terrible joke. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for it. I have faith that he'll eventually hang himself here unless he gets a clue as to what NPOV is about. But there's no rush. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I, Emily (AKA I dream of horses), noticed this and hereby announce that you have a wonderful sense of humor about something that you apparently a strong opinion about. I dream of horses @ 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was in the middle of writing something grumpy and figured I needed to lighten it up a bit. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, now you have something to remind you to be cool. :-) I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Concern

I came across this page while doing some recent changes patrol and tagged it as {{db-person}}, but it also violates WP:CHILD and gives out WAAAY too much information. Could you delete it for me quickly? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Protonk (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird Accusations

Die4Dixie apparently has accused me of saying that I want to disrupt Wikipedia (Which I never had nor ever want to) and also said if I keep it up I'd get blocked or banned.[4] They have been continually accusing me of bad faith and breaking various policies. All the while I have been trying to discuss the issue with them. I am kind of getting tired of this. Can anything be done? Brothejr (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you have asked that this not be hashed out on your userpage, please feel free to email me if you want me to explain the situation. If not, I will consider that the matter is closed from your point of view, Protonk.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, you are doing a pretty good job of stalking me. Please stop stalking me. Brothejr (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• He's not stalking you. Odds are he has my talk page watchlisted, which is fine. He's also right, I don't want to play host to disputes between you two on my talk page. D4D, my position is that things would be greatly improved if you didn't threaten other editors w/ blocks or bans unless it was absolutely clear that they were in the wrong. In my experience, escalating a content dispute with threats (or suggestions, if you please) like that almost never works out well for either party or for the article. I don't mean that as a veiled threat. I just mean to say that you won't get what you want, he won't get what he wants, and the article will sit stagnant in the meantime. All the while, bad blood is being generated. I'm not going to wade into the article disputes with the banhammer--partially because I've edited some of the articles (not enough to be 'involved' but enough that if I used the tools I would get hassled about it) and partially because I can't be bothered. I'd suggest that both of you avoid each other or that both of you avoid high stakes national level partisan articles, since those seem to be the impetus of many disputes. Since I don't think either of those outcomes are going to come to pass, might I suggest that both of you just refrain from escalating disputes to round after round of meta-accusations. You guys can continue to use this talk page if it is talking to me. I'll probably just revert any back and forth between the two of you that goes on this page. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to me as I originally just wanted to talk with you. Either way it's ok. I'm not worried about any so called "evidence" as much as how far he may choose to push it. That was why I asked if anything could be done as I am getting tiered of his innuendos and why I said stalking was because he seems not to want to let it go. (As evidence of his popping up in here to post that comment above.) Finally, I was just looking for advice from an admin. 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. I am terrible at advice because most of it comes out as some version of "be the bigger man". That advice is hard to follow on high stakes articles like Obama, because sometimes being the bigger man involves walking away from disputes or conceding where you might benefit from digging in your heels. I don't have too much specific advice re: D4D because I don't know a whole lot about him as an editor. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and I understand.  :) Brothejr (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also thanks from my side for your honest and accurate comment above regarding D4D, who rather engages in well hidden accusations and attacks than staying on the issue and is just killing the argument in his (my) favor. I don't think there is a chance to convince him to a better approach which could really work in his favor (at least in this case). Don't know what to do about it as he won't listen to anyone, no matter which political side tries to reason with him. Anyway, sorry to post this here on your talkpage Protonk.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My ANI section...

Thanks for collapsing that; I obviously couldn't do so without "moar dramah". In some ways, I regret it a tad, because if that's all the enemies I have made trying to gang up on me... well, I think I've kept my nose pretty clean. At any rate, feel free to comment on the substance of my actions as well--I always welcome scrutiny by peer administrators. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Could you take a look at AIV? I have a post there that requires attention and a deletion of a page. Many thanks ahead of time...NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that page. I am heading off to bed, if you are going to be online awhile, would you mind keeping an eye on the hoax page creator's contribs. He stopped right before you deleted the page, but it wouldn't surprise me if he came back. Night...NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for an hour or so, then I'm off to bed. Protonk (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Inuit18

I reported User:Inuit18 last night for vandalising topic however you said that he was not vandalising but it looked like content dispute. Take a look at his recent edits. All the user is doing is deleting sourced information in several topics like Balkh Province, Kabul Province and Ghazni Province. Or the user is pushing ethnic POV. (Ketabtoon (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

From the policy page

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned. Please remember this warning from your recent RFAR. Protonk (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling a vague class of editors elite is not a personal attack. This "gotcha" attitude reminds me of what caused the arbcom in the first place: Editors with opposing views attempting to silence others with no justification.

It was not "my arbcom", it was another editors arbcom, an admin which you defended.[5] He lost his adminship for abusing his admin tools. I was warned for three pretty mild comments compared to the personal attacks of many admins (repeatedly telling others to fuck off, etc.).

The term "elite" is based on a scientific study of wikipedia, in which elite editors are those who influence and make policy and veteran editors. With over 40,000 edits, I would be considered elite too. Since this offends you, I will change "elite" to "veteran" editors, to avoid any confusion.

Protunk, we have a rich history ourselves. I still find it ironic you were advocating for the Article Rescue Squadron.

Ikip (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Do whatever pleases you. I'm just reminding you that sending off messages to editors to vote a certain way in policy discussions and turning various debates into personal battles isn't cool. And it is something that you have been explicitly warned about by people who don't "share a rich history" with you. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert

That doesn't make any sense. He was blocked for edit warring on an article under probation. I added his name, the name of the administrator who blocked him and the block log summary. There should be no dispute. You're simply inflaming the situation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain the deletion of File:Jeffrey Gordon's sexual harrassment complaint -- Page 1.jpg from the article on Jeffrey D. Gordon?

Were you concerned the the watermark showed the image wasn't really in the public domain?

When I uploaded those images I asked for input on the commons village pump. It seemed to me Commander Gordon wrote this letter as part of his duties. As such it would remain in the public domain, even though it was watermarked. One only person replied to that thread. But they agreed.

I am going to link to this note on Talk:Jeffrey D. Gordon. If you chose to reply maybe you could do so there?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. -- When I signed on tonight I had a note on my talk page directing my attention to Wikipedia:ANI#Jeffrey_D._Gordon [6].

Re:USS Massachusetts (BB-59)

I believe all applicable points have been addressed. Thanks for the swift response, I must confess I was expecting at least a week's wait if not two before someone got around to reviewing the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• No troubles. I'm a little selfish when it comes to GA reviews. I thought I should do a few today so I picked two that I would have fun doing, rather than moving down the queue. Protonk (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Silvermaster group of accused American spies for the Soviet Union

I'm worried about the name and existence of this template, and its placement on the biographies of the people named therein: Template:SilvermasterGroup It seems to violate some principle, maybe BLP or NPV? Anyway, I'm not sure what to do about it, and so thought I would bring it to the attention of someone who would know how to deal with it. Thanks.

BTW, thanks for the GA review at John Maynard Keynes. LK (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• They all seem to be dead, so no BLP. But it does seem to be heavy on primary sources, eh? Protonk (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably an internet conspiracy theory fighting for recognition on Wikipedia. I think this template is a bad idea, smacks of WP:OR, but not really sure how to address it. If you give me a pointer, I'll try to pursue it. Should I propose it for deletion somewhere? What are the controlling policies over what templates should exist? LK (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The tone may suggest a conspiracy (the whole "Venona" history is so tied in with the recent push to lionize McCarthy, it is hard to tell), but there is no shortage of published sources on the topic. As for the template, I don't know. I think the same sort of ideas apply about synth/or and npov for templates as they do articles. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a sleeper

DFKNGG took up the moment the soft-block went in effect.—Kww(talk) 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Might be best to pop over to SPI to ask them to flush out any other sleepers. Protonk (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He's pretty obvious. If another sleeper pops up, I'll report it then. I suspect he wasn't smart enough to keep a full drawer in reserve.—Kww(talk) 20:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The PUF backlog

Thank you for helping making it smaller.--Rockfang (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes

Thanks for the incredibly detailed review. Even FA candidates often dont get so much attention! I was gutted to start with at the thought of all the work it would need , but now Ive really enjoyed thinking about it. As we dont have long before the 7 day limit expires, it would be great if you could advise whether enough has been done on images for it to pass on that ground as i dont think theres much more i can do in that area for now. Also can you let me know what you think about my response to your point on the Reception section. If you could let me know by Sat that would be great as I plan to do all the editing on Sunday. Apart from images & reception you might not want to even read my responses as they are a bit long. Thanks again! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, the 'on hold limit'. Don't worry about that. It's more of a suggestion than a mandatory time period. So long as you or someone else is actively working on responses, you can take as long as you like. Protonk (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

speed of light

We were both thinking about Speed of light, but came up with different solutions.

My take is that it isn't a page protection issue; WP:EW#Exceptions to 3RR is pretty clear it is a 3RR issue unless vandalism or sockpuppetry is involved. Thoughts?

In other words, I'd rather leave the article open than become The Decider. tedder (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I looked at the AN/I post and some of the talk page comments and just said, protecting the page before we get into an edit war is better than protecting the page after we get into an edit war. I have a personal preference for page protection in content disputes (over blocking) because the downstream complaint of one sided admin action is muted. However, I meant what I said at the AN/I thread. Should any admin feel differently or feel that the problem has been solved by blocking, they are free to unprotect the page. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll delete my post on the talk page. I hadn't seen the ANI, because I saw it via RFPP. tedder (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Back at it on the Katy Perry stuff

It's a different ISP, but located in the same city. Apparently, he's using a friends computer. 200.82.253.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs blocked.—Kww(talk) 02:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/7

Yo Protonk; given your comment at the above RfA, you might be interested in SoWhy's oppose. Cheers,  Skomorokh  16:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• I should have added the comment I always do for that kind of support. A review of CSDs using only deleted edit has a big selection bias problem. :) Protonk (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. "I've reviewed your CSD work that some other admins already reviewed and approve of, and I approve of it!". Cheers for the follow-up!  Skomorokh  16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Though not so bad as you might think. A lot of bad CSD tags get applied to articles that are eventually deleted, and a lot of admins delete stuff where the posting editor warred over the CSD tag (don't check the history, etc.). Also it has the distinct benefit of providing a load of decisions to look at. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Two good points, I'll grant.  Skomorokh  16:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Protonk. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses @ 01:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Protonk. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Animus

Hello--At the risk of being uncivil, "animus" seems to be the standard mode for Scribner. I can't tell that they retain this animus between interactions, or if it's a moment-by-moment thing. In any case, it's made me wary of interacting at all. That's a luxury I can afford, which will be hard for others when policy pages are at issue. In any case, it's not yuo, so try not to let it raise your hackles. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that way. I can really understand frustration with people over time. There are pairs of people who when forced to interact will cause sparks. But it shocks me to see prickly responses right off the bat. Also part of the response is meant as a somewhat explicit signal "you are out of line, here is an easy way to walk back in" without waving the bit around (which never makes things better). Thanks for the thought. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

impedance transforms

Yes, template, that was a good idea. But we need one more aimed at network analysis, that one doesn't even have the main network analysis article, let alone the simple ones everyone is going to look for like resistors in series and parallel. I'll put it on my to do list. SpinningSpark 23:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

SPA?

SPA? Single purpose being ANI reporter? I've created two crime articles. I've written very little in ANI Acme Plumbing (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

..."Protonik"? Heeheehee...HalfShadow 04:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Szląchski

For thoroughly owning an issue I didn't want to clean up, I hereby award you the coveted and thematically appropriate I-couldn't-be-bothered-to-create-a-barnstar-template barnstar. ;-) Melchoir (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll treasure it always, once I get around to it. :) Protonk (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hoax articles,

You may wish to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A nikitin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Userspace draft moved into mainspace

Thanks for the notification and the work that you have put in. I am happy that the article The Western Brothers should stand. At some point I hope to considerably expand it. JH (talk page) 08:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which - List_of_women_treated_in_George_Ballard_Members_of_British_Ladies actually refers to Memoirs of Several Ladies of Great Britain, who have been celebrated for their writings or skill in the learned languages, arts, and sciences (published 1752) as referred to here [7] in an article about one of his subjects. It's a good list - I can't think of another one for educated (and therefore potentially notable) English/British women of the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. I just don't know what you would call the article. Did you track down who created it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• It was from User:Dsp13/drafts/Ballard originally. If it is a good list would you mind adding that article and giving a little more context to it? I don't know very much about the subject. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• I;ve added a note on Dsp13's page to check that's OK with him, and you'll want to do something with the history y/n? I'll add enough info to the article to show that the chappie and his list are notable. I can't figure out why Dr whatever mangled the sense out of it in the first place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I already left a note (if memory serves) on their talk page asking what they want to do. I don't want to to a history merge without asking because as you can see, the draft page involves more than the article and I don't want to disrupt any future work. If there is no response after a while I may do a hist merge anyway. Protonk (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Removed

It is clear that you dont seem to understand the car system and how they work. The 'Non vandalism' as you put it actually is vandalism/testing edits having looked through a well sourced encyclopedia known as 'Britanica' As for the other forms of 'Non vandlism' as you put it they are clearly vandalism/pitty testing mistakes. I would like this matter looked into please as I dont think that rollback should have been removed I have seen users abuse rollback way more than that and not have it removed. Corruptcopper (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand your first two sentences. With respect to the removal, I asked another admin to review my action here and he determined that it was correct. I disagree that the edits you reverted were clearly vandalism. Some included future information, poorly formatted text or information not ready or prime time, but those contributions are to be weaved into articles through the normal editing process, not rolled back. If you find edits on pages which are inappropriate you may revert them with an informative edit summary explaining why the change was made. As for the last sentence, other stuff exists. I noticed your changes because you rolled back a good faith edit on a page I have watchlisted. I have no other means of detecting who may be using rollback properly or improperly, so I don't much care that I am not able to detect and correct all misuses of the tool. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm well this wiki clearly isnt for me then if I cant do anything correct why bother. Corruptcopper (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • If that's how you feel then I'm sorry. As I told Juliancolton, ROLLBACK is easy-come, easy go. As soon as you make clear to another admin that you understand what is and isn't blatant vandalism (preferably by spending some time at WP:NPP without semi-automated tools), the rollback right can be restored and you can go back to using Huggle. All you have to do is slow down while using tools like huggle and be deliberate and they can be very effective. There is no reason that this bump in the road should push you permanently away from the wiki. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok cool I will head over there and look without the use of Huggle. I have got Twinkle installed but havent used that for ages so dont know if it works but I think that is much easier to use as it defines what is what when you are taggin a new page or if you are reverting something. Also I thought I would be honest and point out to you that I am still on the user list of Autowiki browser but not sure If i can use it without rollback but if you want to remove me from the list feel free. Sorry for the rant earlier has been rather stressful in the offwiki life. Corruptcopper (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's ok. I think AWB and twinkle should still work without rollback (and I don't think we need to go through the rigmarole of moving you on/off those lists). Good luck and thanks for understanding. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry to intrude, but I stumbled upon this situation and I believe that you were ill-advised to remove the Rollback rights without first warning the editor that there was a problem. That strikes me as unfair punishment, particularly in view of Corruptcopper's overwhelmingly positive contributions. Therefore, I have restored the Rollback rights - with a notice that they will be removed if there is a repeat of the behavior that brought about their removal. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Userspace draft of Consolidated Electric Light Co. v. McKeesport Light Co

Hi, I got your message on my talk page. I'm quite ticked off that someone took it upon themselves to tamper with an article which I had been working on privately. I was wondering if I could simply copy and paste the material back into my userspace and simply have the article speedily deleted, since the only GFDL rights which would be violated would be my own, and I really don't care about that. Would that be an acceptable solution? --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll do you one better. I moved it back into your userspace. Whenever you feel you are done you can move it out. sorry for the mess, but there were quite a few that had to be cleaned up and I just took a guess as to which ones would do the least harm merely left in article space. Thanks for understanding. Protonk (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your words of concern

I however think that this is an issue that should be of concern to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has received legal threats regarding these images from the APA. I have received threat both on Wikipedia and now off from member of the psychological community. I think the Wikipedia community takes threats of legal actions insufficiently seriously. Having third party organizations take action against Wikipedia editors IS a serious effort to undermine wikipedia.

The consensus is currenly 54 to 7 or there about for the inclusion of this content.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Right. I agree with your points here: that wikipedians (including myself) are generally in favor of including the content), that WP has received legal threats from the APA. I don't doubt your claims that you have received some veiled threats yourself. where I get off the bus is your claim that those threats are best announced and discussed on content and project talk pages (without evidence of their existence). That doesn't promote discussion and doesn't relate directly to wikipedia. I don't need to tell you how to best respond to those threats off wiki, but I can say that announcing them here is ill advised. In telling Faustian and the other editor to stop concern trolling you (with respects to WP:AGF, that's my read of the situation), I felt it was appropriate to remind you that you started this discussion and you can best stop it from becoming a bigger mess. Protonk (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not actually think any of the editors here are responsible for the complaints I have received. I am not sure however how it could become a bigger mess than it already is? Would be happy to post verification if you wish.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't imagine that discussion on the wiki would make things any of a bigger mess for you at all. But I also don't know how productive it would be. We can't offer much other than sympathy even if we feel that you shouldn't be in any trouble. Also yes, I think it would be preferable that you provide some verification of the 'threats' (within the confines of our terms of service, which means don't post the contents of the email w/o permission) and it would help if you limited the scope of the complaints here (there are a half dozen debates running in parallel right now) and clarified the extent of the threat. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Have emailed what I have received to a number of admins as well as Mike who does legal for Wikipedia. Will leave it at that until after the college makes a decision the end of Sept. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your recent support (and defense) here. I really do appreciate it.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   09:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing reviews!

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		I hereby present this amazing barnstar to ProtonK for his amazingly well judged advice helping to improve good articles on a wide range of subjects, all done over a short period where he performed plenty of admin actions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Keynes and Maths

I also read your review for Maths and Art, was thinking of reviewing that myself! Thanks again for your input on Keynes. I'll check again in about a week to see if you still want to write the Keynes and Maths article. Ive no preference which one of us does it, but if its me i was going to read a few of the papers on the subject first as its an academic subject so i think it ought not be approached lightly. It would be usesful to know if you're going to save me the work! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

Re:[8] are you opposed to adding references to articles or putting {{unreferenced}} on articles without references? Jeepday (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is this a serious question? Protonk (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are two goals of the project you said you opposed. Tag unreferenced articles, or add references to them. You did not say which you are opposed to, just wondering. Jeepday (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If I told you I was opposed to adding references to articles, would you believe me? Protonk (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, yes , would you like to sign up as an Editors opposed to Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or WP:BURDEN? Jeepday (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would make such a list but I might be depressed at this size to which it would swell. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this as a gentle nudge that I ought to be more clear about my comment on your project page. Back in a tick. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your clarification. That I disagree is self evident. In any case please stop by and add references to a few articles? Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot). Jeepday (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This edit is not addressed to you in particular, it is more a response to general attacks that have been ongoing. You did a nice summation, of the half of the comments that are not disagreements with standing policy. Thank you. Jeepday (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE"[9], I agree to disagree with you on several points. Would you be willing to Summarize the disagreements with tagging? Maybe we could do a pros and cons section at the top of the talk section. That would allow editors to make there own decisions on how they can best help without ongoing differences of opinion.

There have been several comments about changing the task so that adding references is the priority, though many of those who suggest it have seemed unwilling to actually volunteer to add references. I don't disagree about changing the priority, though am unsure how to do it while keeping the tagging in and not violating policy. You can't say "If you look for and don't find references, add a {{unreferenced}}" it would be counter to WP:V and WP:OR, in addition to WP:N.

If you are up for either of these task please start a section on Wikipedia talk:CiterSquad to work out the details. Jeepday (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Most people don't volunteer to add references because adding references is hard. improving content is hard. Tagging is relatively easy. Not tagging is even easier and discussing things is the easiest of all. Thanks for the offer to join but I don't think that my style of editing meshes really well with a project like that (See the icon on the top of my userpage for an idea...not the admin icon). Protonk (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like quote this statement "Most people don't volunteer to add references because adding references is hard. improving content is hard. Tagging is relatively easy. Not tagging is even easier and discussing things is the easiest of all." at the top of the Wikipedia talk:CiterSquad, may I have your permission? I would link to the edit that added this as reference [10]. Jeepday (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Permission is implicit in the license at the bottom of the edit page. ;) But thank you for asking. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for granting permission, [11]. Jeepday (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor userfication request

Howdy, you userfied a deleted page for me (Traditional marriage movement) and I am grateful. Could you by change also userfy the deleted talk page for me? Thanks. - Schrandit (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Protonk (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

rollback

You still haven't clearly answered my question about rollback. Can I use rollback to revert blanking a section?  Btilm  01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Driving by, I'll say that he answered it. I'll try again, though. I blank sections all the time:unsourced lists of songs labeled as "Confirmed songs", despite having no sources to confirm them; lyrics in sections titled "Lyrics", because the contents were copyright violations; chart listings where none of the charts are legitimate; "Plot summary" sections where the plot summary was a direct quote of the back of the DVD package or book flap. If you used rollback to undo any of those, that would be a serious problem. If the blanking is vandalism, it's OK to use rollback. If the blanking is because the contents of the section are questionable or illegitimate, it's not OK to use rollback.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What kww said. The question is too broad to answer yes/no. Use rollback to revert vandalism, don't use it to revert good faith edits. When in doubt, add an edit summary. Protonk (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

When is blanking considered vandalism?  Btilm  02:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

When you can't conceive of any reason to do it aside from a desire to damage the encyclopedia. If you have any doubts, but think the material should be included, revert the blanking and explain why in your edit summary.—Kww(talk) 02:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, remember that a lot of users simply don't use edit summaries, even though they mean well. so someone might decide that Mathematical_economics#Econometrics is bunk and remove it. An editor who has been here a while might know to provide an edit summary explaining why, but someone who hasn't been here a while or hasn't learned when to use an edit summary may not bother with it. So that could be a good faith edit that involves only blanking a section with no edit summary. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So, are you saying just decide whether or not the deleted section is really important to the topic, and if it does, use rollback to revert it?  Btilm  03:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no one is saying that. If you have this much difficulty deciding whether an edit is vandalism or not, you probably shouldn't be using rollback.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Special

Nuke. Keegan (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, cool. Guess I wasn't paying attention. The last 'poll' I participated in regarding whether or not to enable that extension here didn't reach a consensus. Protonk (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Markus Brunnermeier

On August 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Markus Brunnermeier, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo article you assisted ZuluPapa on questions with last year

Protonk, I'm going through and cleaning up the mess I made of Jetsunma's article. I wasn't straight with you guys, though my spin-doctoring against Jetsunma was pretty obvious to the Wiki community I'm sure. I did not have scholarly integrity in how I wrote the article about Jetsunma, cherry-picking negative information to put together as negative a picture as possible -- even more negative than the most critical materials out there. I knew what to use because I was one of the main sources on the book, The Buddha From Brooklyn, which is major conflict of interest as well (especially since I didn't admit my involvement and presented myself as an outside party and then used that book extensively for the article). In fact, my real name is Michelle Grissom, formerly known as Ani Dechen, and am actually a student who broke with Jetsunma in 1996. I was one of the main reasons the book was so slanted against Jetsunma. I was not honest in that book either, slanting information exactly the same way I did here on Wikipedia: I used things that weren't really a problem for me because I knew they would upset non-Buddhists. Describing a confrontation where -- after 8 years of my rebelling against the monastic community and my breaking my monastic vows -- she yelled at me and swatted me once, I called it a "beating," simply because the police term for any kind physical contact is battery. I swept my own behavior that led to this under the rug. Jetsunma has been divorced several times, to men who either were or later became her students, and I used that in the article to make her look like she was sleeping her way through her students. I also used the generosity of her students as a way to paint her as being very greedy, even though she's never even asked for a salary, and blamed her for the ongoing struggle to build a monastery, even though the main reason the monastery hasn't been built is that the land bought for it doesn't perk. I've taken all the spin-doctoring out of the article and I am very, very sorry I abused Wiki for my own personal vendetta. Longchenpa (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I recall how I was involved in this dispute. If you are apologizing for deceiving folks on the wiki then I can tell you that we will do our best to forgive the past as a matter of course, though I can't personally accept this apology. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)