User talk:Protonk/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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)

I don't know what you mean by being "cute" but either I didn't make myself clear or you chose not to understand me. 1. Don't do things for no reason. 2. Do follow recommended procedure. 3. Don't help your friends assert ownership over articles. 4. Do get your facts straight. 5. Please. Thompson Is Right (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is over. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability (Fiction)

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

Re: You got me here

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

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

Unprotect request for User:Edgarde/tools

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

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

as one of the people involved in the discussion, I support this request. DGG (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice it has been unprotected, which is good. I'm sorry I didn't note this on your talk page, but I tried to make clear in the protection log and A nobody's talk page that any admin reversing the protection would be acceptable to me. I'm sorry that it came to this anyway, it is always frustrating to have two other users editing your userspace. Let me know if you need any help. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Somedays, I despair ...

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

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

DreamGuy, again

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

I just took a look at it, and it's not looking too good, more of the same WP:POINTy crap. I want to get you and Daniel's opinions on this before I do anything or take this to ANI, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know a good solution that doesn't involve escalating blocks. I'll probably be off until tomorrow, so don't wait for feedback from me. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fancy taking a look at something?

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

• Sorry I haven't gotten back to this, chris. I'll try and catch a look at it today. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like an opinon on civility

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

• Seems to be moot. I crawled by the AN/I discussion about that user (imortale or whatever) and saw the progression. My guess is that OM could have disengaged or deescalated (instead of ratcheting things up), but I'm not sure that an after the fact block is the best outcome. the game OM is playing is dangerous...basically it only works to call someone a POV pushing sock or SPA if they are those things. If they are not, people come crashing down around you. That's uncomfortable for us to watch, because we want actions to be right, not outcomes. But it usually isn't worth the mess. I don't know OM personally, but I have seen several situations like this and they lead me to be very cautious. That probably isn't the answer you were looking for. :( Protonk (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, advice is exactly what I was looking for. The discussion is current, I'm not sure if you realised that, but if he continues the behavior, is there some way I can prevent him from disrupting the discussion without a block/ban? Tealwisp (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that the discussion is current, but the impetus for the discussion has been removed...at least for a week. The easiest but least satisfying way is to back off. Again, that falls squarely into the category of things which you don't want to hear (and that I hate saying), but it fixes the problem fastest....or at least it fixes the proximate cause of the problem. It clearly doesn't stop OM from being a jerk. Protonk (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't not want to hear it. I came to you because I know that you give honest advice. Tealwisp (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Space Wolves AfD

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

• Thanks much. I'll G4 it. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

BLPs

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

Thumperward's RfA

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

Edit-warring?

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

• Reverts on the page are reverts. It takes two to continue to fight over a preferred revision. I'll take a look at the discussion, but I've previously blocked DG so I won't be looking at it with fresh eyes. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just though I would point out that I followed protocol here, having been the subject of DG's wrath previously. Twice is pretty much all I was going to revert with him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect that. Stuff like this puts people in a bind. You can't ignore it, complaining on article talk pages when a change is made (or a second revert is made), and then go to an admin or a noticeboard when the content is put in a bad state--that will likely get rejected as a "content dispute". but at the same time if you try to either prevent changes or force a conduct issue (which in some cases is the only real way to get some relief) you run the very real risk of either becoming the problem or being painted as the problem. It's not an easy solution. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

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

Barnstar

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

• Good article! But thank you. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review mentoring?

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

Archiving?

Hi Protonk, hope all is well with you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive user is back

Hello. Do you remember that disruptive user, who said he was going to open a legal threat against Wikipedia and that he was leaving the project, then he started to reverte all his "contributions" writing "Reversing all my edits, since I don't want to be associated to Wikipedia in any way" [1] [2] [3] ???

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

Heads up

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

• I'm, uh...not sure what you mean. Context, please? :) Protonk (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

• Never logged on to IRC. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The definition of canvassing

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

Rewriting Dream's words in the subsection title is really deceiving Chris, especially since he never even mentioned "email" anywhere in the message. I appreciate if you refactor this "blatantly" deceiving subsection title, it makes a "circus" out of this whole situation.

Messaging (not emailing) everyone that was just in a AfD about a merge is not canvassing. As long as Dream contacts everyone who was in that AfD.

This is exactly what happened in: Talk:Tom_Tucker_(Family_Guy)#So_we_need_a_merge_discussion, in which Protonk got an message to: User_talk:Protonk#Merge_discussion_at_Talk:Tom_Tucker_.28Family_Guy.29 Ikip (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But that wasn't what was asked for. The question was I want to send a message to everyone who voted Keep on a recent AFD. That's not "everyone".—Kww(talk) 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Kww, in my eagerness to help, I missed the "who voted keep" statment. I will advise Dream via email not to do this (for the same reasons as stated below). I have now removed the entire section. I included all the editors in my list before it was deleted, not just keep editors. I am at a loss why Dream would ask me in on a talk page to do this when he knows editors who would love nothing more than to see us banned regularly monitor our talk pages and edits.

Again, the "Is there an automated way to votestack a debate?" "Here, let me make you a list of email addresses" subsection title is false. But I don't expect anyone here but me to ask Chris to change it. Protonk was calling for my head a few months ago...

In the case of Tom Tucker, the editor notified everyone, not just "keep" editors, similar to the list of links I provided. We all know this is acceptable. Ikip (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. You two edit conflicted my first response, which was to say that this kind of dispute is almost always not worth the trouble it takes to resolve it. Remember, just as there is no single piece of content worth alienating a good content contributor, there is no single piece of content worth distorting processes and causing people to distrust the distribution of viewpoints in discussion. To be crass, trust in processes is like virginity, once it is gone, it doesn't come back. I know you are very attuned to the impact that poor discussion practices at AfD have on new users. Please consider that canvassing (and the appearance of canvassing) can have a similar impact. (Edit conflict comment: Good lord, I was thinking of protecting this page so I can get a word in edgewise.:) ) Protonk (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• You can read exactly what I wrote. How do I send a message to everyone from an AFD automatically? was the title of the message. [4] I said I wanted to contact everyone from the AFD to tell them of the merge discussion. If the majority of people in the AFD voted to keep an article, and then someone decides to eliminated it anyway, it no longer there, just its history and a redirect, then I think they'd want to know about it. If the majority of people said delete or merge, then it wouldn't matter. I asked to contact everyone, not just the keeps, since I know what canvassing is, others doing this in various articles I've seen, and it fine as long as its everybody. Dream Focus 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I was born at night, just not last night. You said, and I quote. I want to send a message to everyone who voted Keep on a recent AFD, to inform them of the merge discussion. Is there something I can use to do that automatically, it grabbing the user name of everyone who posted on the AFD page, and then allowing me to send them all the same message at once?. I'm not actually sure how I could read that sentence to say "everyone" without omitting important words. But either way, I'm not your father. You can read WP:CANVASS. Sending a neutrally worded message to a cross section of people which is not likely to support a view one way or the other is fine. Sending a message to everyone who voted one way on a subject informing them of a discussion where they are likely to vote in a very similar way isn't. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• ==How do I send a message to everyone from an AFD automatically?==

I want to send a message to everyone who voted Keep on a recent AFD, to inform them of the merge discussion. Is there something I can use to do that automatically, it grabbing the user name of everyone who posted on the AFD page, and then allowing me to send them all the same message at once? Dream Focus 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the entire thing. Notice the big bold title there? I meant everyone. Didn't even notice my wording. But I clearly said twice in that bit, first in the title, and then in the context, I was going to contact everyone, not just the keeps, which most people were. I believe when people vote to keep something, they don't want it gone anyway, with a redirect to somewhere else, and it rude to do things behind their back. Dream Focus 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't quote the title. I quoted the body text. I'm sorry that you erred in your wording. I'm also sorry that you interpret merger discussions as some rude affront to a keep vote. I do want to reiterate that it should be perfectly reasonable to interpret your body text as meaning what Kww interpreted as. If I put a post on my talk page whose title said "I am concerned about certain editors" but whose content read "I would like to block every editor left of me on the inclusion spectrum", I don't think I would have much ground to be outraged at someone who interpreted my post by reading the body rather than the title. Since Ikip has given you the answer (another answer would be to use AWB rather than excel..the work you would have to do is the same, but the tool is different) and you appear to not be interested in canvassing per se, I don't see the merit in continuing this discussion. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I write something, then don't notice it when I look over it again sometimes. What is AWB? And I do believe most people who say keep, would be upset if the article wasn't kept, a merge done without them noticing it, that what I was thinking of mostly. But I will contact everyone, that only fair. Dream Focus 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AWB is "auto-wikibrowser", a windows application that can automate some tasks. You can write scripts for it or use scripts and plugins written by others. It can use regular expressions and has a fairly reasonable set of tools. You have to get a bot request to do any unmonitored edits, but if you are watching the preview screen and hitting the "commit" button, you can operate it without anything more than a change to your monobook. there is a lot more info on that page. Protonk (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Again Dream Focus, be very careful what you say on wiki, you are not only jeprodizing your editing priveleges, sometimes you are jeprodizing others too. You know these pages are monitored and very public. As I understand it, you can message all people in the Afd, but not just the "keep" editors. Messaging only the "keep" editors is stupid, because your edits are public too. I am sure it was a mistake.

thanks for the valuable suggestion about WP:AWB protonk. I agree with you: "Please consider that canvassing (and the appearance of canvassing) can have a similar impact." Ikip (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. From the looks of it, my page does appear to be quite monitored. Though I submit that absent actual canvassing 'editing privileges' aren't in any jeopardy. Especially from any action on my part. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to pile on to your page protonk. But this seems a good location to remind Dream Focus that selectively choosing to inform only editors with more than 25 edits [5] about an AFD is not a way to circumvent the canvass rules, either.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep all unrelated things where they belong. That is a totally different issue, where major contributors of an article were told of a discussion concerning the article, and asked if they wanted to help find some references. No need dragging that over here. Dream Focus 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that selectively informing all major contributors to a large article is a good idea, and more practical than messaging everyone. In fact, one the hold-ups for requiring notification of all authors has been to find an automated way of identifying the major contributors--but that is a combination of number or edits and substantial nature of the edits. DGG (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If a program could count their number of edits, and how much was added by them, this information already presented in the article's history, then if they meet either of those two things, they could be added to a list to contact. Since many of these articles being deleted have been around for years, most editors aren't going to keep them on their watchlist. Otherwise their watchlist would have far too many things appearing on them to keep track of. So this would be the best way to do it. Dream Focus 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Um...the article history already has links that provide a list of contributors with edit counts (not "information added since that's impossible to determine through any automated means). Same tool is used to inform "major contributors" of FAC/FARs/GARs, etc.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you can read the information, you can calculate it. I learned how in various computer programming languages long ago. It presents it on the screen, green number showing how much text was added, and this number can be read in, along with the name of the editor before it. Simple enough. Dream Focus 16:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it can calculate characters added. It can not calculate actual information. Someone fixing grammar or sentence structure might add 20-30 characters in a paragraph, while not adding any actual new information or content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

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

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

I gots me an image, yes I does

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

Sounds like a job for OTRS. See WP:COPYREQ for instructions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear lord, no no. You don't need OTRS for that. Trotting off to post on Arcayne's talk page... KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 22:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

John Emilius Fauquier

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

Happy Protonk's Day!

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

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

RFA thanks

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

If you have a minute...

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

Yon post of yours

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

• Arguably most of the stuff we deal with is on the silly side. my comment about the odd position I am in has more to do with a likely perception from both sides of this debate that I'm pushing the scales against them. I find that strange--it's not an image I cultivate, but I can't really avoid it. My main takeaway from that thread is this: most of the accusations made there were par for the course. See this recent AN/I thread started by him based on a misfiled deletion debate. I've also been on the other end of his accusations, so I understand that he has a habit of overstating his case, to put things mildly. But I also can't help but notice that you continue to engage in activities and poke editors in a manner that isn't likely to smooth things over. You know the best course of action is to stay away from him, even if that means only avoiding him in face to face (as it were) encounters. I don't think the letter of Roux's mutual topic ban was right--'A Nobody' has always interpreted my suggestion that he "stay the fuck away from me" as some sort of prohibition on me commenting on threads he has also commented. That's unduly restrictive.
• Another thing that you have to realize is that you really are operating on a short leash. An unbanning w/ conditions kind up puts you in a very specific set of restrictions that most editors don't have to deal with. You know that, so I won't belabor the point. Just steer clear of trouble, don't try to make jokes with or about him and things will come out ok. Protonk (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  I saw the misfiled bit by Ryan4314, whom I don't know, but do recall from AN's editor review; basically Ryan's opinion of AN turned around because AN repeatedly tried to redact my comments out of the discussion. I've seen many such outburst from AN, and I expect you've seen most of them, too. FWIW, I see the trigger for this thread as having been this (tweak; Kevin-->Foxy; opps) where I suggested a block, plus several where I suggested an RFC/U. In the ani thread, I referred to roux's proposal as fatigue, not DR; editors with issues, myself included ( but I'm thinking of the past ;) need sorting out, not smoothing over. AN, PF and others need sorting out, not opportunities to continue their poor behaviour. I took a hit last year, fur sur, and I did some wrong, but I've done a lot right, too, and not just elsewhere while en:blocked; Rakata, for example. Believe me, one doesn't get unbanned without a *lot* of honest discussion that convinces folks that your core intent is good. I hope that yon thread and this one have served to convince you of that.

  I know there are areas I have to be cautious in and that there is a bit of a 'leash' involved, but it's not about AN/PF or pop-culture et al. They do not get to redefine the terms to cover themselves; this is what I mean by saying that they're gaming the system. They see a chance for a do-over. They're simply engaged in agitprop with the folks with the buttons as targets. Don't be taken in ;) Most admins do have clue, which is why that thread has run down.

  My take-away is, ya, continue to be careful, but also that AN way-overplayed his hand and is one step closer to resolution. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. I don't remember if I bothered you previously, so I'm getting you now. ;) I have to say one thing I really respect about you is your ability to get along with people you disagree with, and to make sure those who do come closer to your point of view keep from digging in the dirt. A lot of people (myself included) could learn a lot from that and put some of the partisan crap that divides this place off to the side. But hey, happy editing man! :) BOZ (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Naxytaxy

Please block you-know-who; you already did once ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Help, please

Phil has gone a bit far.—Kww(talk) 19:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My Lord, you've finally learned that we have a policy on personal attacks! A pity you didn't know about it enough to criticize your allies for making far worse attacks earlier in the debate. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that now, after all the poison you've dumped into the well, my continued irritation at your abrupt reversal and undermining of months of work is somehow the last straw, and administrator intervention is needed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have dumped no poison into the well. I seriously, profoundly, and absolutely disagree with you on many levels, but I have tried to keep that discussion civil and without making these kinds of accusations. I tried hard to reach a compromise, and "reversed" only after people made a fundamental change to the second prong after the RFC was over.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no fundamental change, and you know it. Just like you knew it then. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You really need to examine some of your assumptions about me, Phil. I honestly worked for a compromise, and I reversed my vote after the language was changed to make television episodes get a free pass on prong 2. I have a hard time believing that you don't see that prong 2 was fundamentally changed, but I'm will to let my doubts stay out of open debate with you. You may have a hard time believing that I see prong 2 as having been fundamentally changed, but you should accept that I do. "Spewing toxic lies" is one hell of an accusation to hurl at another editor.—Kww(talk) 19:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Kww, you know that I wouldn't really be the best person to block Phil. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If I was expecting a block, I wouldn't have come here. I just know that sometimes you can get across to him where I cannot.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. If Phil said that shit to me, I would want him blocked, so I made an ass out of you and me. Sorry for talking about you like you aren't in the room Phil, but you've got to know that was out of line. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil. Just stop fucking lashing out at people whose opinions you find noxious, because you tend to feel that way about a lot of folks with some regularity. All it takes is a deep breath and the knowledge that it doesn't fucking matter if you win an internet argument. Look at all the good winning arguments about FICT did us. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My Sig

Thanks, I wasn't sure if Doug had spotted a problem. I know we are at opposite sides of consensus at RfA... but if it IS an issue, I will try to top it. --Preceding unsigned comment 19:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• No worries. I actually do love the sig. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WSLK

Would this be considered an appropriate edit? Since I can't see the OTRS ticket in question, I have to reference what I have. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 04:08

• Sure. That edit is within the rules. I personally prefer that people use an edit summary for most reverts, but only WP:ROLLBACK requires one. Again, there is a difference between saying that you shouldn't revert an edit and saying you shouldn't roll back an edit. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, my rollbackers status was taken from me in that post. I didn't fight it. I dropped TWINKLE as well. So, I am bare bones tools at the moment. Thanks for the quick response. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 04:17

I also added this to "make nice" with the owner's admission he can hear the station in Roanoke, VA. I can't confirm it, hence why I put that part there. I don't know if it is necessary, but I think it works. What do you think? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 04:21

I'm not a fan of edits like that, adding an assertion and appending a caveat immediately. However, if it helps resolve the dispute, then that's probably best. May want to add {{Whom}} to the end to make clear to the reader that the portion is disputed. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted by another user who didn't like and the reference I added is being disputed as dubious. Sigh, I can't win for losing tonight. I think I am going to give up for the night and take a wikibreak. I think I have earned one after this mess. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 05:15

Your recent ANI post

parsimonious: frugal to the point of stinginess. Good word, I'm embarrassed to admit that I had to go look it up. They say you should always use a new word in a sentence when you run across one ... so .... "I don't want to be parsimonious in my praise of your vocabulary, therefore I will say 'Good Form' my friend."  ;) — Ched :  ?  05:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I know that word only because I had to look it up after hearing it in a lecture so don't feel too bad! :) Protonk (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Paranoid Style in American Politics... Notable?

I noticed you removed my notability tag from The Paranoid Style in American Politics saying that it meets GNG. Im not saying your wrong, but, how did you determine this? Bonewah (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's the foundational essay for almost all of the work on American conspiracy theory. It is cited (on google scholar, which is notorious for underestimating humanities citations) 476 times and has ~1000 hits aside from that. there are a fair number of books devoting chapters to it. Peter Knight, probably the preeminent scholar on American conspiracy culture, devotes some time to it in one of his books. The article is kind of a quote farm, but the subject is pretty notable. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok. If you dont mind, i would like to copy this section to the article's talk page, so ill have this info handy when i deal with the article's sources problem. Bonewah (talk)
    • Not a problem. I may update the article with some of those sources if I get access to them. Protonk (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on reading if a RfC has consensus

I'm contacting yourself and some other uninvolved editors to see if you would be willng to read through an RfC at the Article Rescue Squad. It will be far from the most glamourous use of your time but it will help us see if we have reached a decision on this issue. I think the discussion has died down and concensus has been reached but another user has posited I'm misreading this. For the moment I've left my comments in the "Motion to close" and collapsed template in place but if others agree there is no consensus I'm fine removing or reworking them. The discussion itself isn't too brutal and the comments have stayed reasonably well organized so it shouldn't take long. Please read the RfC and discussion and offer your take in the "Motion to close" section. Thank you! -- Banjeboi 13:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review help

Hi. I'm new at reviewing good articles and I was wondering if you could look at Gná and Hófvarpnir. It looks like it should pass, but I would like a second opinion. Thank you. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:ARS

This strikes me as needlessly antagonistic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron

Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Awesome. :) Sent to MfD in 3...2... Protonk (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record

I was defending a man in black. I was commenting on the fact that ikip and friends were piling on unnecessarily. I guess that got missed for some reason. David D. (Talk) 23:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. The comment "looks worse for the hunters" led me to assume incorrectly. sorry for the confusion. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No problem, I should have known better than to enter that bottomless pit :) David D. (Talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I was probably a lot testier (whoa, that makes it through spellcheck!) than I should have been. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI re Gimmebot

I was wondering what your thoughts on the matter were currently? Things got... way out of hand. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Last I checked (maybe 12 hours ago) the bot hadn't made any more edits to GA transclusions. I don't know if that is because gimmie changed the code or because he didn't queue GAs or some other reason. It's kinda moot if the bot stops. My honest opinion is that this is kind of a non-issue. Yeah, it would piss me off to have a bot archive a review I left up, but that's where it stops, mostly. That said, I promised to block the bot if it operated outside its remit, and I will. Protonk (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks. I suspect that it's because Gimme disabled the entire GA portion of his bot out of frustration... but whatever. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I just read the rest of that thread now....I was kinda wondering what you meant about getting out of hand. Well...that's the way of the world. I wouldn't worry too much. Part of that communal tantrum you witnessed explains my extreme reluctance to deal with anything FA related. I don't have the stomach. Protonk (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Try FLC. We're much nicer over there ;) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dalek

My mistake - didn't check the usage rationale (in fact I am extremely hazy on this in general and didn't realise that there are images that can be used in articles but not in userspace). Must read those there copyright notices one of these days! pablo_hablo. 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it - This file [[File:DALEK.jpg]] seems OK for userspace - can you confirm that I have read the license correctly? pablo_hablo. 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No trouble. I don't know how quickly the bot jumps on things but they usually replace it with a big unsightly "copyright" notice which sucks the fun right out. The image you link is probably not free as well. Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama gives a hint at the trouble. The "sculpture" (we'll just call it that for now) was made by the BBC and the image isn't a new free work because it is derived from a non-free work. Might I suggest File:Villainc.svg? Protonk (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I may be overly conservative about the image you linked here. The reviewers of Dalek didn't seem to object, so there you go. Protonk (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to an ANI comment of yours...

"More to the point, when we find this new raft of administrators who are neutral in every respect on every issue and who also have an interest in wading into these periodic shitstorms, please let me know"

Some of us are not part of cliques, feel that blocks are generally a last resort, but also have intestinal fortutide. However, we then fail our RfA's ... just like the subject of an article I helped write that recently became deleted after 4 years said "people don't want to hear the truth: that want to hear what they want to hear, no matter how much BS it really is". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• And it's a crying shame that we refused to promote you (promote may not be the right word...). I could probably be described as part of a clique, and I think we have different views on where blocks enter in a continuum of responses. But yeah, we don't get many admins who are simultaneously interested in long running disputes and also free from bias on those same disputes. Well....maybe that's not entirely fair. Or maybe what I described in that quote is a complaint common to many admins involved (at least partially) in disputes who want to use the tools to settle conduct problems. We feel trapped and frustrated but resolving that frustration would gut any marginal respect that admin corps gets for being disinterested. Unfortunately a good synonym for disinterested is dispassionate and passion is a prerequisite to understand some of these disputes fully. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I truly appreciated the support (I didn't do any thankspam), and indeed you were one of those "surprises" in the way you supported, and I mean that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your input

Your input is noted, Protonk. Thanks for your input! AdjustShift (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, it was a little brusque. Sorry for that. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done

I thought you handled tonight's situation very well. Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. The oddest things end up on my watch lists. Back to homework! Protonk (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I've responded to you

here. Thanks. ↜Just M E  here , now 08:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WT:ARS

Good point. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy

I'm mildly offended by your assertion [6] that my (or anybody's) position on policy/consensus is based on the result that they want for this particular dispute over WP:PLOT. My opinions about how we should handle this sort of situation are long standing and how I feel about WP:PLOT has no bearing on that. I wrote this essay back in '07 asserting the same position that I argued today. Obviously, this isn't a big deal, but being mischaracterized is just a pet peeve of mine. That said, I'm happy to just walk away from this dispute. I really need to get back to article writing instead of hanging around policy pages. It just makes me miserable. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confused. I didn't explicitly point out your advocacy of that position. If you don't feel the remark applies to you then I submit that your intuition is correct and the best course of action is to assume that it wasn't directed at you. Because it wasn't. It was directed at the legions of folks who circle the wagons when it comes time to debate policy with regard to fiction. I think that evidence suggests peoples' views on POLICY/PROTECT are influenced by a strategic incentive, even if they aren't being deliberate about it. Remember, I don't particularly care about the contents of someone's heart. As a corollary to that, I have long felt that AGF prevented us from calling a spade a spade. Specifically, someone can be arguing in good faith but still be inclined to take a position on an issue due to their inherent biases. If I assert that positions in an issue are being taken based on internal biases, I am accused of not assuming good faith. So rather than suffer that accusation, folks normally do one of two things: 1. Argue as though no editor preconceptions shape the debate or 2. Take up a group of likeminded editors to balance out each side. 1 isn't terribly bad, though it makes for stilted and nonsensical discussions. 2 is what we see at NOT/FICT/AFD/ARS and it makes working in these areas unpleasant.
• More generally, and I don't mean this to be rude, you have every right to be offended that I might have painted you with a broad brush but that right narrows considerably when dealing with "anybody's" position. It's probably fair to characterize me as callous and cynical. I won't protest that. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really want to debate the merits of AGF, particularly regarding people who aren't me. Like I said, it's not a big deal. I simply find it easier to state my piece, get it off my chest and move on rather than nurse silent resentment. Thanks for reading and giving it some thought, though. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. For resolving conflicts on ANI. thank you. Ikip (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

plot discussions

Progress is slow at WP:NOT, but it's there. There are a number of people who are now talking about middle ground, rather than pushing for one of the 50/50 options to win out. My advice is to distinguish the consensus builders from those who are simply trying to score points in a debate with no judges. You'll be able to tell the consensus builders because they'll admit there's no consensus to outright remove the policy, but they'll also be supportive (or at least accepting) of a re-write or move. You'll be able to recognize the debate club if they're still trying to argue about whether to keep it at all.

Don't take the WP:Bait. If you see a comment from someone who is trying to stonewall or filibuster the discussion -- inclusionist or deletionist -- try to ignore it. If you absolutely can't, my advice is to keep your reply to one line or less, explaining that you don't think their viewpoint has consensus, and/or advising them to focus on something that does.

It looks like you've scaled back your time at WP:NOT. But if you find yourself with the time to join back in, try to throw your weight behind people pushing for a compromise. Reward open-mindedness with your attention. Don't reward trolling, filibustering, and obstructionism, or you'll just end up in a long debate that drags the conversation towards "no consensus". (Reply back here.) Randomran (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Request assistance in order to relieve another busy administrator

Hello. We haven't crossed paths. I hope you are an administrator type. I have been in touch with Trusilver, who as you may know is a pilot of some sort. I have invoked the right to vanish. Trusilver is gone by now, and I wish not to pressure him. You are free, of course, to check with him, but couold you help me and do the honors? I'm too old and ill to sit here all day long and 'vanish myself'. By the way, I'm not even thinking about trying a fresh start or returning to edit. I don't even want to look at Wikipedia anymore, but I must until I've been vanished. Please let me know if this is appropriate. I'll drop a line to Trusilver. I'm sorry I don't know how to insert that link that takes you to the person's page via his name. Please, reply at my talk page, it's all I can handle these days to read that. RevAntonio (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A thousand thanks, I see what you did for me and am very grateful. I just hope there's no one waiting in the wings to try and grab username RevAntonio. Any future use of that username should be investigated at once. I was RevAntonio, you can easily verify that by my ip since I do not mind; and again, I thank you deeply Protonk. 75.21.116.175 (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisChan

Please restore ChrisChanSonichu's page. The deletion was an entirely inappropriate response.

I don't agree. If you would like me to restore the page, I am happy to talk about it. If you have a compelling reason why the deletion was inappropriate then I will consider reversing it. Please note that I was not the only person who felt that deletion was the right route, so you might have to be pretty persuasive. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot

Probably should delete this now... heh.

Thanks.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c ) 02:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RevAntonio

Can I kindly draw your attention to the comment I left on User talk:Trusilver's page about User:RevAntonio and User:ChatNoir24 ? Both have been causing considerable havoc on the Anna Anderson page and also the discussion page of the same name. Thanks in advance, Finneganw (User talk:Finneganw) 04:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My IP stalker

• 207.237.33.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - one of his original IPs
• 207.237.230.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - new IP sock you need to block, even more so per here.

Please leave a note on my talk page once you have, thanks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note, I also posted this message on several other involved admins' page, so that it can be dealt with swiftly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ban my fat ass, bitch!

I need an internet break. Need to clean my room and lose weight. Please ban me for 3 months or 60 pounds. Or more. Thanks.

If you're hesitant, conside me to have posted tubgirl on your talk page.

As the guy in Flight of the Intruder said..."I'd do it for you, Sandy", when requesting to be killed.

• ROFL. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

response

Sorry, I've been a little out of practice with Spanish lately, and while I am still on the list because I could do a basic translation of an article, I think that someone more fluent in Spanish should take care of such a sensative and complicated situation. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been extremely active lately myself, but I remember that User:Jmabel was very active in issues of different languages on the English Wikipedia, and he was just here a couple hours ago. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection of NOT

I think that calling that an edit war is incorrect. Two rather strong-minded editors were jumping around. Dreamguy shouldn't have removed the tag, but was otherwise fine. SH should have waited for discussion of his proposal, but it was actually a reasonable one. SH's edit summary on the last revision was really poor. I think that full protection for that long will end any real chance of finding a way of addressing the issue. True and full consensous isn't going to come about on the topic. The question is if we can get enough people "in the middle" to reach an "un-happy medium". Protecting is going to make that impossible.

People have been quite restrained there for the most part. I think full protection is overkill for an edit, revision (with minor change), and revert back to where we started by the first editor. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Further, I notice that per WP:WRONG you've protected the wrong version. I'd argue that we should probably have the disputed tag, as it has been stable for a while, was added by an admin, and it certainly is true. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm just unwilling to see a slow burning edit war come about over that plank, or a tag attached to that plank. I didn't actually look to see which revision I protected, wasn't it the one where SH edited it last? I feel that NOT is an important enough policy that some semblance of compromise and consensus should exist before we make substantive edits to it. I'm willing, as I said on the NOT talk page, to protect the page as long as it is necessary to make that the case. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you mind if I ask you to take it to WP:AN and do a general survey? I think this is an overreaction which makes things worse, not better. The last revision was by SH, but from what I see he didn't actually _change_ anything, just added an edit summary (I could be mistaken). Hobit (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't mind at all. Give me a heads up when you do. Or if you like I can do it. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd prefer you did. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Ok. I'll throw something up shortly. Protonk (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Full_Protection_of_WP:NOT. There. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Email

Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a personal attack

See my response in AN. I just strongly suspected we'd end up with a protected "right" version. And I am pretty annoyed about the protection considering the latest round of issues met WP:POLICY. Bold editors of policy and guidelines pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. If your changes are removed, please make no further changes until the issue has been appropriately discussed on the talk page. No one violated that. At worst it deserved a warning to one or both editors. Certainly not a 2 week+ protection of one of our core policy pages when relevant policy was being followed. Both followed 0RR for goodness sake. Hobit (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's been protected almost a dozen times in the past month or so because of edit warring over plot. I didn't look at the two edits from that day and say "these two edits certainly are signs that both editors are right now exceeding some revert limit". I looked at those two edits, saw the back and forth over the past few days between the same two editors, saw the pattern of back and forth over the same sentence or so and protected the page to prevent future disruption. The changes that happened there weren't "being bold". I can't imagine what would prompt you to call it that. The edit under dispute had been performed at least 5 times in the last few weeks, there was an RfC with >100 people involved, there were thousands of words said on the subject on the talk page. We were well past bold. Just because no one else physically made that edit that day doesn't reset any timer.
• I didn't want things to devolve into a mess between SH and DG about who is wrong (I don't think SH is in the wrong for wanting to remove PLOT or mark it dubious necessarily), that's why I didn't intervene on the editor side. When dealing with issues like this I prefer to protect a page preemptively to stop things from escalating to a point where we need to have yet another AN/I discussion about nothing (Referring here to the two that have been started so far over PLOT variously, not the AN discussion about the protection).
• And I don't consider it to be a personal attack that you would think I acted improperly in protecting the page or that you spell out exactly how I acted or why you think I made that decision. If you thought that I protected a version based on some preference of mine, the opportunity still exists for you to say that, but it is a pretty serious accusation. The reason I made that specific statement at AN was to ensure that it wasn't being said by insinuation. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A Dominican Duck

Check out contributions, with respect to contributions... seems like a WP:DUCK to me. I'd also created an ANI thread about this; WP:ANI#Duck hunt. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. Indeffed. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be back as an IP: contributions (added File:LogoMRD2009.jpg to an article, which DRB394 uploaded to Commons just now). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a fair notice, since you appear to be offline at the moment and the IP is doing all the stuff MRDU08 was doing, I've posted this to ANI as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk

Thank you

Thank you for the offer to userfy. I can't speak for everyone else who is doing this, but I am going to userfy everything that is still on wikipedia, and only after that is done will i go back to the articles which were deleted. thanks again for your help :) I will let hans and the other gentleman who are doing this know. Ikip (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Electroide and Arlonuelle

Hi,

Just wanted to mention this to you, since you saw my post on the administrators' noticeboard and were nice enough to send a note to the person in question:

I have no solid proof, but I think that User:Electroide and User:Arlonuelle might be the same person. They've both been uploading a lot of the same (or very similar) copyrighted photos of male athletes and male models, and editing the same articles, and their user pages are remarkably similar. Is there a way to verify whether they are the same person? I've heard of something called "checkuser" that can do this, but I don't know anything about it.

I think that User:Cybernetic DanceAngel might be the same as well, as I noticed that Arlonuelle actually left herself a message on her own talk page, but then went back, edited the message, and changed the signature to Cybernetic DanceAngel.

It's all a bit strange... —BMRR (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

At User:Jennavecia's suggestion, I went ahead and filed a report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electroide. —BMRR (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTPLOT

Hi, I'm contacting folks who have contributed on NOTPLOT to get their feedback on Masem's proposal. It seems to have a chance... Thanks, Hobit (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Yeah,

Sorry if I over reacted, but I view "I don't mean to be rude but" is, as a way of saying "I'm going to be rude now". I did think it was unclear which is why I asked. I had a hard time parsing your comment.

On a different note, NOT#PLOT is doing well and having another set of eyes there would be helpful. We have something that everyone active in the discussion is okay with (Gavin, SH, myself, Masem). Hobit (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's ok. when I say "I don't mean to be rude" I usually mean as much. If I say "this may sound rude" that is much more of a signifier that I intend to basically be rude. I'll hop over to plot later today. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10