User talk:Protonk

Archives

Sure

sounds a good idea - what really needs to be done first is clean-up of the top level core articles and then work downwards.

as for the warning, the reason I put it up was because of this, so yes the angle does seem to be - "guilt by association". --Allemandtando (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snailmail Barnstar

		The Hidden Page Barnstar
		I award you one for finding User:Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you checked your mail? TREKphiler 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC) (I should check this more often...)[reply]

Warhammer articles

I just noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene-seed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officio Assassinorum, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Mechanicus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptus Mechanicus, etc. and of course Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000. Anyway, Warhammer seems to really have some dedicated fans! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I used to play it, before the only gaming store in my city closed down. I'm serious about reversing my opinion about those pages should some sources come up. Alternately, you might be interested (if you have some spare time) in Gary_Alan_Fine. He is an anthropologist who writes about VERY specific cultural subgroups. He has written books on DnD ("Shared Fantasy" is a pretty good book), little league, morel hunting, etc. He is an EXCELLENT secondary source on issues like that (though I imagine the DnD project has already absorbed it, "Shared Fantasy" is a little old). there is also an academic clearinghouse for "games and culture" at TerraNova. It is a blog but there are copious links to scholarly papers on modern gaming. Just some ideas for sourcing if you're scouring. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Also, props if you can suss who I am on that site simply by comparing text. :) Protonk (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not played that particular game, so that is why the single-purpose keeps and all came as a suprise, i.e. I did not know it was so popular. In the larger scheme of things, I think I am volunteering too much time on Wikipedia as is and should be devoting more of it to my dissertation. I do think Wikipedia has worthwhile potential and value (I use it, my dad uses it, my students use it for better or worse...), but I would be more apt to want to look for sources if when they are found and used they are not still shot down in AfDs by those who are unwilling to help look for sources or change their stances (I am not saying you, but you have to acknowledge that some are indeed just not willing to budge sometimes regardless of what new is presented in a discussion. Sometimes my efforts do work (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centurion (Scarrow novel), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights Templar and popular culture (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and the Pumpkin Queen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Ways to Die (song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Resident Evil 4 as some examples and I can tell you as someone who has been here for a couple of years to someone who is relatively new that if you really want to experience the rewarding and pleasant side of the project it is in improving and saving articles; AfDs are easily one of the least enjoyable), but as you have seen other times, I run into AfDs where some are not open-minded. And unfortunately, I keep running into and become the target of extreme deletionist sock farms (such as [1], [2], [3], [4] and their many associated accounts; I have correctlyy identified at least 11 different such farms now that I can think of off hand with many, many accunts and IPs in each) that it is increasingly difficult to not be somewhat suspicious of accounts that behave similarly in AfDs and DRVs. Regarding open-mindedness, please note [5]. If an admin has decided that the article is at least valid as a redirect, then there is no harm in restoring the edit history as well, but keeping as a redirect so that 1) if anything can be merged, then it's possible; 2) should addition sources surface, we don't have to start from scratch, 3) and I others who are not admins can still view more our contributions which is helpful in RfAs. I have found that we gain more friends and allies for discussions and matters that really matter most if we allow some leeway in scenarious like this one where a good number of admins and others do see value and are willing to keep working to improve the article in question. Please do consider that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I think we are on the same page if we are talking about AfD being frustrating. I guess I can't see the same thing you see about the sourcing in particular. I agree with man in black (regarding your talk page conversation w/ him). If you bring up a good source for an article that clearly shows notability, then people who still argue to delete should and will be shouted down. Most votes are fire and forget--you are a rarity among editors with regard to your watchlist, I suspect--so changes to the article will not change prior votes necessarily. I also think that it isn't the responsibility of editors at AfD to search for sourcing exhaustively.

I think there is another, more important distinction. you have views about inclusion and notability that are not shared by many editors. Therefore if you look at an article (like CC in pop culture) and I look at an article we don't see the same article. We LITERALLY see two different articles. I saw an indiscriminate collection of links held together by inference from primary sources and bare, tangential mentions in secondary source. You saw a discriminate list connecting a notable character to various points in popular culture, a list that was interesting, in demand and in accordance with the project's greater goals. I'm not interested in a rehashing of the debate, but rest assured, we saw things differently. If I took on your perspective, I would see 'my' requests for sourcing and hyper-critical vetting of sources as confrontational and stringent. I don't make this point to suggest that you are out of sync with general consensus (as my user page says, none of us are bellweathers for consensus). I make this point because I think you have a strong and persistent tendency to misperceive actions and positions held in good faith as the acts of deletionists. That doesn't mean that some editors are breaking policy to push for deletion or that some editors have a confrontational attitude toward certain projects. They do. But a lot of actions are performed in good faith.

I don't know. I think you are fighting a good fight. I think you know that. Appropos of nothing, what is your thesis on, if you don't mind my asking? Protonk (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thesis dealt with Napoleon and European unity; my dissertation is on Napoleon and the cult of great men. While I do make the occasional edit to Napoleonic articles, I am a bit less willing to argue with non-experts about something I have degrees in than I am with stuff that I have more hobby knowledge of. Hence my focus more on popular culture, video games, and horror movies as far as Wikipedia goes. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Quest

Thanks, look forward to working with you on the article. Questarian (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Houghten

On 4 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard A. Houghten, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General suggestions

Dear Protonk, rather than tag something, it is worth doing a quick search to see if references (see page 140) confirming the statement come up. Also, please use Edit summaries. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes. However the tag was put there because the claim was somewhat expansive. I'm also more interested in references verifying the text rather than references containing some version of the search string. Usually, searching in specific references (almanacs of television and film, biographies, production diaries, etc) is beyond my immediate ability. Tagging it with an inline tag helps alert people more capable of finding the solution than me. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in addition to the one linked above, we have [6] which confirms that it was used in the opening montage, i.e. a prominent, memorable aspect of the show worthy of mention in at least two books. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its use in the opening montage is not controversial. I'm contenting that the use in the opening montage doesn't constitute a prominent feature. I'm willing to concede that point because it is relatively unimportant. The more important point is that such a use in the opening montage doesn't buttress a claim that united airlines is significant in popular culture. It just happens to be a point where the planes were shown. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use in a montage that inspires multiple publications to mention it coupled with the coverage and discussion of United 93 in popular culture all come together to buttress the unoriginal claim that United Airlines appears in popular culture. All the article presents is simply United Airlines in popular culture and no one can reasonably claim that it does not appear in popular culture or that it's appearances, especially the 9/11 ones are not significant. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is your claim. That is not the claim of the sources. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My claim is based on the sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something else you may want to check out

See Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention_against vandalism#Vandalism to an article that had not been noticed for nearly two months. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. there IS an administrator tool to see all "unwatched pages" That list is probably enormous (and not 100% helpful as some watched pages are watched by default by the creators who may no longer be active). Protonk (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just makes me wonder how much more of that there is that is less obvious as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a lot. Somewhere (maybe in that external peer review page), there was a study of how prevalent vandalism was (based on a survey of pages) in mainspace content (so not prior vandalism). the number was large. There also was (again, I don't remember the link) a back of the envelope calculation as to how helpful IP editing was. They assumed some reasonable percentage of IP editors who are vandal only and assumed a reasonable time budget (in editor hours) for combating such vandalism effectively. The broad, first order estimate was that IP editing was VERY helpful. Something like 80 IP editor hours gained for every registered editor hour lost. Also, along the WP:EPR idea, check this out:

Wikipedia as an academic source

Protonk (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tell my students to be as cautious as possible when using Wikipedia and discourage them from citing it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would too. I've never cited it. I think that some of the papers were about web/web2.0/etc, so it is expected. I think, eventually, people will be ok citing it by linking to diffs/histories, rather than the current page. To me the problem with citing WP (fundamentally) is that it is inchoate, not that anyone can contribute. I mean, there is a pretty strong editorial process for good articles and above, so the real problem comes from a citation where the text doesn't match the cite 3 years down the road. But who knows. I think as long as kids don't copy/paste without even changing the formatting (I've seen it), it is a step in the right direction. Protonk (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I see if just too much time spent tagging rather than finding the sources or deleting rather than finding the sources. As seen here, given enough time someone like myself will come along and actually use published books to cite articles. If more of us did that, then Wikipedia would be more reliable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna leave my userpage as a response to that comment. I know that you feel that creating articles fulfills some normative goal that deleting articles does not. I feel that deletion fulfills a normative goal that creation does not. I've come to accept that it is a process, and a necessary process. And all things considered, it works ok. Not perfect. Articles get nominated too fast and people don't pay attention enough, but nothing works perfectly. I've also gotten over worrying that the time I spend at AfD is time better spent adding to articles. If you check my overall editing history, it is very narrow. I don't create too many articles. I don't expand the articles I've created too much. It is considerably more difficult for me to expand articles than it is to contribute to the process portion of wikipedia. I suspect that is not unique. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly articles that I am not convinced belong here (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canyon of the Vaginas as a recent example), but it is far more rewarding creating and improving articles than getting rid of them and for those that have at least some plausible chance of potential or at least a redirect location, then deletion is generally uncalled for. Deletion is something for hopeless articles that have nothing we can save from them elsewhere that cannot be reasonably redirected or that are copy vios, libelous, hoaxes, etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right. but these are things you feel strongly about. We both have different takes on what belongs and what doesn't. Consequently, I have different takes on what is more or less rewarding. If you start with the assumption that deletion is only the proper result for the list you just told me, then presume that deletion of any other article is a waste, I can see how you would come to believe that a lot of the effort in AfD is misplaced. Change those assumptions and the effort may not seem so misplaced. You may find that lots of articles can be improved and should be kept which are disposed of in the process, but others may have feelings all along the spectrum. We can't declare that it is universally more rewarding to save an article from deletion than it is to delete an article that should not be here. We may say "it is more rewarding for us", but we can't make a blanket claim for others. Protonk (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most can agree that improving content is a rewarding experience in some way or another. Forrest Griffin's underdog victory last night was also rewarding! :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, but the implied judgment is that removing content that is not appropriate is somehow less rewarding and therefore less worthy. We clashed over this when you asked me how I could be "happy" at the prospect of finding out a source about the Cheshire Cat didn't verify the text (here and here). I don't see a large difference in worth between correcting an error and providing some novel contribution. On the MMA note, I had lots of friends who used to watch that stuff. I never had cable but it was always interesting to see. It's pretty savage but I truly think anyone who contends that it is substantially more brutal/dangerous than boxing hasn't seen too many boxing matches. On the other hand, I did get to watch a drunk friend of mine try to sucker punch Egan Inoue in a bar once. That was cool. He (my friend) weighed about 110 pounds soaking wet. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content that is uncontroversially inappropriate is perfectly fine (my last three AfD arguments were to delete after all: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Tracy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Patrick Star Show, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takes One To Know One). I enjoy combat sports. I've wrestled competitively and taken classes in karate, jiu jitsu, and even fencing. By the way, you wrote on your userpage that you "came to be a user because of ED, where I was DETERMINED to throw a wrench into the evil workings of the cabal. I was going to be a mole, getting a username, autoconfirming, making a bunch of good edits. then I was really going to show them what for." When did you change your mind, i.e. at what point in your edit history? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: wrestling. I wrestled 181 in high school (or whatever it was, the weights always changed) until our 275 pounder blew out his knee in football. then, wouldn't you know it, after 5 weeks in 275 (when I weighed about 190), I lost my taste for it. :) Protonk (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling was not great on my legs (massive hematoma in my left leg when I sprawled on a guy and went to swim around him managing to smash my leg into an accidentally exposed wooden corner on the wall in the wrestling room and several times having to have my knees drained from massive staph infections). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I never vandalised anything. The plan (there is an instruction on how to do it at ED) was to get a positive editing history and then revert vandalism but insert new changes in there, specifically in articles with LaTex. Make exp into erf or one superscript into two, etc. I "changed" my mind about deletion/inclusion over all about...(looking)....here. It didn't happen all at once but I began to realize that people were making deletion/inclusion arguments based more on their priors than on what was in the article. To me WP:N made sense, it stemmed directly from WP:V (because, as I'm sure you know, WP:N isn't part of the five pillars and isn't part of the three core policies). WP:N was part and parcel of WP:V because it was a neutral method to judge verifiability and freedom from OR/SYN. If a secondary source discussed something, than that information was considered to be verifiable on a subject with regard to the inclusion of that subject in the encyclopedia. that neutrality is sometimes deceptive and sometimes frustrating. It is deceptive because it slants the encyclopedia--meaning that things like Warhammer 40K units are likely to have no secondary sources on them but Simpsons episodes and obscure revolutionary war officers are. It is frustrating because it doesn't SEEM like it is connected to verifiability. If we have (just to take the 40K examples) loads of printed material published by a company for decades on end, it seems absurd to claim that the information presented is not verifiable, and in a literal sense it isn't true. But WP:N forces us to make that decision without regard for our individual feelings for the project. Don't get me wrong, no one is unbiased. I searched much more studiously to defend some articles (the ones on my rescue list at least) from deletion than I did others. as you no doubt know, I subjected the cheshire cat article and the united article to much more scrutiny than they would have received otherwise. There is some WP:BLAH that described my actions with regard to those articles and advises against it, WP:INSPECTOR or something. But I really believe that the current WP:N guideline allows us to keep and delete articles with a minimum of reference to previous stereotypes. We don't need a list (the one you mention in AfD's) of permissible content per user. We just make sure it meets the guidelines and go. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this, the discussion is hard to judge without seeing the article in question. My bases for inclusion are "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia and "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia. I have seen an increasing number of AfDs with claims of no sources can be found only to find them or with just rapid fire per nom "votes" or posts like that and then never coming back to the discussion when the article is improved. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Well, you do realize that if that is your basis for inclusion that you will forever clash (not that this is a bad thing) with people whose basis for inclusion is more strict, right? As for the increase/decrease of AfD's that are votes, I will defer to your experience w/ WP on that but didn't AfD used to just be a vote (i.e. assent or dissent to nom tallied without regard to policy) 3-4 years ago? And even IF more people just say "per nom", the net effect should be zero, right? Protonk (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD was previously votes for deletion. Now it is supposed to be a discussion. You and I, while on opposite ends of some discussions, do actively engage people, but pick up on how that annoys those who just want to vote or who never return to the discussion in question to change their mind based on new evidence or arguments. The per nom problem is that I have seen a number of accounts make maybe even three per noms in under a minute as part of a flurry of AfDs, which is really hard to believe anyone could have checked themselves to see if sources exist for the article in question. I have a couple of times now seen people say sources will "never" exist or "cannot" be verified; only to find sources that do in fact persaude in some cases for the nomination to even be withdrawn. And I just keep running into sock accounts that gang up "voting" to delete so that many AfDs are really tainted. In addition to reforming the notability guideline, I think AfD needs reforming as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But usually those people just get ignored. I mean, there is a structural imbalance here: since an AfD almost always (see this for a rare exception) starts with a rationale for deletion, people are inclined simply agree without further comment. Or, they may simply add comment even though their reasoning is fundamentally redundant to the nomination for fear that silence will mean consent (if there are a few keep votes). These, partially are people problems and in that sense we will never fix them. People will always bring up the "other stuff" argument and so forth, we can't 'fix' that. But they are partially very real structural problems. There is an attempt, in the design of the process, to rectify these troubles. This is a case (IMO) of the "second best" solution. A system may exist that solves the structural problems we see but the result may be unacceptable for other reasons. As a result we accept some tradeoffs (allowing perfunctory comments in debate, providing few limited on nominating articles for deletion) but establish strong safeguards to ensure the process is effective (presumption that benefit of the doubt goes to 'keep', Deletion review for process control, no prohibition on good faith recreation, etc.). As for sockpuppet voting, if it is blatant (and it usually is), the decision will often be made against the socks (I've seen this about a half dozen times) or the article relisted. That, to me is a pretty strong protection. there are subtle sock/meat puppets but they don't impact too much in the long run. Back to my point one or two comments above, if you apply your standards for what is to be kept to the deletion process, you are sure to come away with the impression that it is fundamentally flawed. I submit that (at least for judging the effectiveness of AfD) you should judge the process by how well it applies current policy and guidelines to the articles in question. That is the the only fair judgment criteria, because presumably the people running the system are applying policy rather than aiming for the inclusion of articles according to your criteria. Protonk (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many AfDs closed as delete with maybe a nomination and two or three "per noms" that who knows based on my own experience how much actual sourcing was done. And when someone with sources does show up and attempt to recreate the article, it gets speedied as "previously deleted material". There are some accounts (User:AnteaterZot and User:Lord Uniscorn, for example, who were part of fairly extensive sock farms that were not discovered for quite some time after they started editing and it's not as if we have DRVed all the AfDs they were in...yet. But, we had AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hairbag, where I'm going back and forth with and being insulted by AnteaterZot and Lord Uniscorn only to have a checkuser ultimate confirm that those accounts were in fact the same person. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case the wikipedia expectation that silence implies consent applies. There is room in AfD for strong inclusionists and debating uncontested nominations is the an easy place I can think of. Hundreds of articles go through AfD every week. I'm sure some of them could be kept with a rigorous attempt at sourcing but lots of them are noncontroversial. If an article is nominated, goes 5 days with only 2-3 comments all "delete per nom" what (aside from relisting it, which is common) is to be done? If the best attempt to gauge consensus results in a consensus to delete (presuming that no keep arguments come up), then how are we to justify keeping it, even if the comments are perfunctory. Take Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NESCafe. Arguments were made but it was essentially 3 comments over 5 days and deleted. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.

Always good to do it the right way!