User talk:Protonk

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, Grsz¹¹ 01:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I missed you. No worries, thanks anyways. Grsz¹¹ 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, Grsz¹¹--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! Grsz¹¹--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)

• Not a problem. I'm happy to explain things or offer to reach some compromise. Protonk (talk) 03:21, 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. Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, {{Db-g5}}, and Wikipedia: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)

• Ok. I'll take a look in a bit. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 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)

• Not a problem. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

• Sorry, was out running errands. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 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^T♦C 23:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's why I db-ed Flag of North Cyprus --Blowdart | ^talk 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)

• (edit conflict) I know. My question is more of a process wonkery one. I don't want to delete perfectly normal pages as a G3. I'm just getting confirmation that all of those are considered non-grata, basically. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 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 | ^talk 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)

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)