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)

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 Wikipedia. -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)

• I'm in and out today, please give me some time and I'll make a comment. Basic idea looks good. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks - I will look forward to your feedback. Stevencgold (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I read your comments and appreciate them very much. They do make sense. You said that you will provide me with some more feedback and I will appreciate this too. Thanks. Stevencgold (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:Quack

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

• No need for apologies. Hope you like the template! Protonk (talk) 01:11, 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: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin abuse of tools. best, –xeno (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pointer, Xeno. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 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 Wikipedia, since I couldn't find any articles related to Hong Kong Light Rail stations before I created them in Wikipedia. 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)

• Er. Perhaps you should ask an administrator who wasn't involved in ED, that AfD or dealing with the editor directly. Also, check your close of the AfD, the article page and the talk page to make sure everything is updated properly. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • My closing was flawless, and vandal has been blocked. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry 'bout the close thing, I confused this revert with the ED page itself. Everything seems fine. Either way, I would have been the wrong person to block that account. Thanks for the close. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • LOL, well, maybe not after they pagemoved your userpage. Then pretty much anyone could have blocked them. :) Protonk (talk) 22:52, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)

• I'll try and take a look at this today or tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bust a Groove citation...

How about it? Umm... Yeah, I believe the cited article was merely a mirror of earlier Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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)
  • Ok, I'll try that. Thank you very much!--JCD ^(Talk) 09:02, 18 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^{My talk} 01:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okey doke. Protonk (talk) 01:25, 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)

Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.

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

Special:UncategorizedCategories

Back in September you added directions to the new database report page. (See Wikipedia 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

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|^(talk) 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"... [comment] [comment]. 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)

Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 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)

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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)