User talk:Protonk/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Hiya Protonk. There's been a lot of discussion lately of what to do about the problem of hard feelings caused from the perception that changes to policy don't get a fair hearing. I'm interested in any feedback you want to give on my proposal. (Watching). - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm working on an essay that might summarize the positions in a snappier way, I'll link when it's finished. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at WT:CONSENSUS; you might also enjoy User:Dank/Essays#Consensus_on_policy_pages. I'm proposing something unusual and bold. Feel free to edit the page or discuss on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just finished major tweaks to the essay, and included a plan. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have deleted my new page on the uses of litercay for copyright violation. I think the only part of the paragraph that was not paraphrased was a direct quote from the book. The source was cited. I was in the middle of working on this and looking for all our other articles linking to it. Might this have been in error? Can you undelete it?(Msrasnw (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

• (edit conflict) It might have been, but I checked the source and the article and if it wasn't lifted directly from librarything it was awfully close. I suggest you start by recreating the article with a short line indicating (in your words) what the book is and why it is important. Then, to expand the article, look here for some sources or here or here for some reviews. I agree that the book itself is significant, but an article can't rely as closely as yours did on a single source. Does this help at all? Protonk (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It was only one paragraph with rewording and citing but with a quote from the source. It was from one source but it was, in my view appropriately cited. How do I get the article back to work on - and how do appeal against this deletion? (Msrasnw (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

• I guess we'll have to disagree as to the level of 'rewording' that went on. No need to appeal the deletion, just recreate the article on the same page as I indicated above. Start w/ one line or so and build from there. If anyone tags it as a G4 just point them to my talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I would like to appeal this decision. It might be trivial for you delete articles in this way but it is not trivial and tedious to write them. Who do I appeal to and/or how do I get it back? (Msrasnw (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC))
    • I have put a request on Request for undelete so I can edit it. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC))
      • The article is back and it seemed to me sufficiently cited and rewritten to avoid any copyright problems. I have added another source and done some further modifications. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Dear Protonk, I have complained about what I percieve as your excessively fast and inappropriated deletion of The Uses of Literacy and lack of assistance in my getting it back. My complaint is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges I hope this was the right place to complain. If not please let me know where the right place is. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)) I think I should have put the following on your page (Msrasnw (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Hello, Protonk. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Protonk, where you may want to participate. Msrasnw (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, the issue described above seems to have been moved to WP:WQA from WP:RFC. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey! got your message....Sim12 geolocates to Canada someplace; if I remember correctly, The Chubby Brother and his sockfarm appear to be somewhere else. (I would like to send the entire mess off to the Arctic somewhere, personally.) Thanks for acting on these reports!! GJC 17:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding. Welcome back. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Noticed you have declined to delete various user-created images that lack license information stating that "license is implied". This is not correct, an explicit license template is always required per WP:IUP, even if a user upload an image created by himself, there is no "default" license assumed to be granted simply by uploading the file (unlike for contributed text), all files must be explicitly licensed. If the unloader does not choose an acceptable license, or otherwise at lest indicate the license status with plain text, tagging it as "no license" is entirely appropriate, and if not corrected in due time after notice being given deletion is the only option (if license info is produced in a "non standard" form we should naturally help the user out rater than delete the image, but if no license info is provided at all we can't do much) since we can't have files floating around with no information about it's license. I know it seems wasteful to delete images that are almost certainly intended to be released freely for such "technical" reasons but in the past there have been huge problems with thousands of images with no license info floating around (in the very early days where where no license templates at all) and inevitably someone suddenly asserts that they only intended for the image to be used for non-commercial purposes, or that they didn't intend to allow people to modify their work and such, hence the current speedy deletion criteria for any and all images that lack explicit license information. --Sherool (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Count me skeptical that the form generated licenses are irrevocable. I think I declined less than half a dozen of those. So I'll accept the feedback but it might be just as well to drop a line to the uploader asking them to clarify. Protonk (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and that is (should be anyway) done when the image is tagged as lacking license, but if they don't respond we can't just leave them in limbo forever, if the uploader show up some time after the fact with the necessary information we can always undelete the images after (or they can re-upload them), but sadly a lot of users are just never heard from again. --Sherool (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Extended comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
HANGON-I BELIEVE THE MATERIAL WAS COPIED FROM MY WEBSITE BY THE WEB SITE THAT YOU GIVE AS ORGINAL AUTHOR. The donated material has been developed by Cellulite Endermologie Center, our web site, since 2002. Many other web sites have copied our material since then, including the newer web site http://betterhealthliving.com/endermologie2.htm.htm.(which is not ours) to which you attribute the material. Citations have been given derived from objective medical research regarding what endermologie is and we do not mention that our company provides the service. What is wrong with people knowing about a proprietary and unique process?---- Paulette Long Hangon II Please explain why Ionithermie is entitled to a page in Wikipedia and Endermologie is not? Paulette Long-See below. Also, why do these:Iontophoresis, ultrasound, thermotherapy, pressotherapy (pneumatic massaging in the direction of the circulation), lymphatic drainage (massage technique to stimulate lymphatic flow), electrolipophoresis (application of a low frequency electric current) and high frequency, such as radio frequency, electric current have all been tried. get mentioned in Wikipedia and Endermologie does not? Please provide the rationale to us. Ionithermie From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. (October 2006) Ionithermie is the name of a treatment offered in some spas that claims to reduce the appearance of cellulite improve and smooth skin texture slim the body, causing the loss of between 1-8 inches on the very first treatment firm and tone muscles, lifting slackening areas and flattening the abdomen detoxify and re-mineralize the body, raising body energy levels and the metabolism The actual process involves the application of electronic stimulation (claims to employ Galvanic and Faradic electrical currents), micronized algae, and conductive thermal aroma clay. A Clinical and Instrumental study to evaluate the efficacy of Ionithermie in patients with Edematious Fibrosclerotic Panniculopathy (Cellulite), was performed in 2006 by Gustavo Leibaschoff, MD and Juliana Melamed, MD and their team. The evaluation team was divided into three separate teams. Team 1: Carried out the clinical and image studeis, coordinated time, scheduling and performed the Ionithermie treatments. Team 2: This team monitored the patient's point of view. They asked about the satisfaction of the patien. They kep a record after each session, they asked about relaxation, discomfort, and what kinds of changes they were noticing. Team 3: This team used vidocapillaroscopy to determin the results of the study. Capillary images erer obtained with a videocapillaroscope of 200X magifying power lenses. Images were saved in a computer. Data was saved in electronic format. RESULTS: 100% of the patients entering the experimental study completed the trial. (10 patients) Results of the clinical and image study: Team 1: The participants kept their normal diet during the treatment, it was observed at the last follow-up visit that each patient had decreased their weight by an average of 6 pounds, and obtained an improvement in their body contour. Results showed skin surface improvment, decrease of the cutaneous retraction, and body contour changes in 80% of the patients. After the series of treatments, the average inch-loss per patient was 4.6 inches (total inch-loss for 8 measured areas: upper waist, natural waist, lower waist, upper hip, lower hip, top thigh, mid-thigh and above knee) Team 2: Results show that 100% of the paricipants were pleased with the body contour changes. They said that their clothes were not as tight in areas that had been treated as compared to before the treatment. They also noticed a skin surface improvement, more smoothness and fewer retractions caused by fibrous bands. They reported a pleasant relaxation during the procedure. Team 3: Videocapillaroscopy results: results were based ont he analysis of an average of 4 images per session, i.e., and average of 8 images per patient, and a total of about 120 images for the entire study. It was observed that 100% of patients completing the trial showed a significant statistical modification in the analysis of vertical capillary density before and after treatment. Results were based on ANOVA analysis with a reliability coefficient of 5% (p<0.05). Vertical capillary density showed an average benefit of 31+/- 10% capillaries/mm2, before and after treatment in patients with statistically significant changes between day 0 and day 80. Both a significant decrease in ischemia and the reduction of the edema around the capillaries area were noted. Ionithermie has been studied by external laboratories and show significant reduction in Cellulite and 96% success rate in inch loss for 12 women using the products and treatments over a 2 week period. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionithermie" Categories: Therapy Hidden categories: Orphaned articles from October 2006 | All orphaned articles | Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) Hi Paulette. If you want to discuss the deletion of the Endermologie page, you could try asking one of the administrators who deleted the page (it was deleted twice by two different admins). Their names and links to their user talk pages show up in the reddish box at the top of the page if you click on the red Endermologie link. Trying to start a discussion here on your talk page will most ikely not have any result, as it is unlikely that the people involved will look at this page. (Note that you should have placed a {{hangon}} tag on the article itself, before it was deleted, and not on your talk page. After the article has been deleted, it is too late to place hangon tags.) You should make sure that you are familiar with some of the more important Wikipedia policies before discussing the matter with the reviewing administrators; the copyright policy and the policy concerning advertising are the ones that directly apply to the reasons why the article was deleted. Please also have a look at the policy concerning conflict of interest issues -- you should, as a general rule, avoid writing or editing articles about subjects you are closely affiliated with. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 12:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC) [edit] Speedy deletion nomination of Endermologie A tag has been placed on Endermologie, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam. If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Endermologie and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hairhorn (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC) [edit] Endermologie This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Endermologie, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://betterhealthliving.com/endermologie2.htm.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Freedom of the press. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 22:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paulettelong" Hidden categories: User talk pages with Spam-warn notices | User talk pages with Uw-spam2 notices

• I presume this is a complaint about my deletion of Endermologie. Is that correct? Protonk (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list.  --Lambiam 12:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for taking some time to get back to your comment on my talk page. You may be interested in my response there. Thanks, Shereth 15:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No one on the Left approaches Buckley, but there are many Conservatives who are very smart, take me for example or Jonah Goldberg (Are you going to slander) or many of the fellows at the heritage Foundation, etc but that is not a good point to raise because you probably despise them all, and vice versa. I wrote my honors thesis (commonwealth Umass Amherst) on Mussolini's socialism. I guess he would be a former hero for the left though. You know for people like Lincoln Steffens, and Ida Tarbell, etc, etc.

Here is the real point you raised.

Why don't you defend the progressive presidents (and heros of the left) Woodrow Wilson and FDR locking up hundreds of thousands of political prisoners, and militarism and then we can talk about Buckley and segregation. JohnHistory (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

• I'm not really interested if your opening salvo is to assert that I might slander Jonah Goldberg in asserting he is nowhere near as smart as Buckley. So you can leave, satisfied that I've retreated from your obviously superior intellect. Protonk (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's weak. I asked you to justify the progressive heros Woodrow Wilson and FDR's incarceration of 100,000's of political prisoners and their overt militarism, before I debate the Buckley's segregation. I think that is pretty reasonable in the grand scheme of things, but I will let go what you started. I hope you have a pleasant evening. JohnHistory (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
    • No. You asserted that I lionized two people I don't and then demanded that I defend all of their actions for some reason. Why didn't you ask me to defend the bombing of Dresden or the Spanish American War while you were at it? You explicitly invoked Buckley as some conservative paragon so I figured there would be ample fodder for discussion. Also, kudos on not responding to my original complaint about your post on my talk page. But like I said, permission granted to walk off thinking I'm another soft headed liberal whose political education begins with the first 20 pages of any given Noam Chomsky book and ends with watching Michael Moore harangue congressmen. Protonk (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Funny you mention the Spanish American War, did you know Herbert Croly, progressive found of the New Republic said that the greatest thing about the Spanish American War was that it lead to the Progressive Party? I didn't "lionize' anything, I just predicted that you might denigrate Jonah Goldberg. You don't have to be so sensitive. here are a couple link, I recommend the whole lecture. very few people have watched this, it's off the radar, but a great lecture. these are part 2 and 4 though I recommend watching the whole thing. All the best man, and no ill will whatsoever, I hope the same from you. good night, my friend. JohnHistory (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDGTc3_r9Mg&feature=related
        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U915LmZnT_c&feature=related

Good closing and rationale on that TfD. Very good explanation of the argument weighting. I always find it enlightening when closers go into more detail (regardless if I agree or not) and I think it helps others in similar situations, as well as helping to decrease urges to go to DRV and increasing transparency. I guess that why you get the big bucks <g>. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My intention was to withdraw my nomination initially because of the resounding strong keep this is what I had intended but I got my wires crossed in how to withdraw ir. Hesperian completely misread the situation. I've altered it to a self-withdrawal which I had intended because of the overwhelming keep to show I did try to appease the situation myself. Striking out my previous attempt at closure was not the way to go, you should have asked my to change it to a propoer withdrawal which I have a right to do and what was clearly intended.. See my comments to User:Orderinchaos I tried hard to appease the situation and withdrew my comments to avoid further conflict. My restoring what I clearly have a right to remove and overiding what I'd done has upset me greatly. I've retained your closing comments as it is an effective evaluation of the debate, but the fact remains I did with draw the nomination which is noted above. Himalayan 08:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to be completely overridden with a closure by an admin which looks on the records as if I didn't try to appease the situation and understand the concerns. I accepted all of the concerns, and I should be given credit for that and withdrawing not being overridden because I didn't withdraw it properly. I withdrew my comments withint the discussion (whihc I have a right to do) because I didn't want to create an further ill feeling or misunderstanding about my concerns. I am disappointed with the lack of good faith over this, particularly by Hesperian. I certainly was not trying to flatter anything, it was a resounding strong keep plain and simple. I do have feelings... Himalayan 09:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I have reverted this editor's latest edits to the discussion and also left a message on their talk page. In opinion your close of the discussion was outstanding, and Himalayan Explorer perhaps needs to be a bit less sensitive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that you overided my attempted self-withdrawal which I have a right to do. It should at least acknowledged that I tried to close the debate myself but you struck out my comments with little respect. Himalayan 11:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've brought it up here. If my own withdrawal is not accepted then AFDs or TFDs should not be closed by other parties within a few hours especially if those disctating the outcome are acting out of self-interest and should be given a full week like most nominations. It is definately an unfair turn out. Either restore my self-withdrawal which is accpetable for ending a debate or follow procedures correctly and don't close nominations so quickly without a fair turn out. Himalayan 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you declined the speedy I added to Jacobsen Corporate Services. I have nominated it for deletion because I do not believe that this company passes the notability guidelines. If you would like to participate in the debate, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobsen Corporate Services. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that a word? I doubt it. But thanks, your WikiElfness, for the speedy delete of my incorrectly-named personal sandbox page. WikiHugs! ... Okay, I think I've exhaused myself with WikiCuteness; going to WikiBed now, cheers. Ohiostandard (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi - saw you took care of 3 after mine - just wondering if I missed something (did I take the "optional" statement too literally?). Thanks.  7  08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm SO sorry. I saw the 'thanks' below your request and somehow mistook your signature for some odd checkmark (like a stylized  Done check). You've been added. Protonk (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks ;)  7  14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you have deleted Talk:Order of Civil Merit of Savoy, but can you please also delete Order of Civil Merit of Savoy. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed :). Just say it in a thick cockney accent "the traasers wir a bit of a mess, thao!" Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Protonk. For his clear-cut, non-nonsense ability to encourage editors to become a productive member of wikipedia. Thank you for defending editors and making wikipedia a more enjoyable project. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: [1] I was very impressed with the way you handled the situation sir. Have a great weekend. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's been edit-warring over Bulbasaur again, but strange this time: WikiProject:Pokémon has been struggling to delete it, and people from outside the project keep putting it back.—Kww(talk) 01:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• The CNR was odd. The wikiproject page acting as an homage to the old article doubly so. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Protonk. I am often frustrated by a speedy deletion's removal of history where I am seeking to understand a process. You just aided User:Cnilep in deleting Veiculo Lançado de Microssatelites as described a the RfD. I assume that you placed the {{db-author}} yourself. Did you refer to the RfD in either the edit summary or the template rationale parameter? (I'm just curious.) -- ToE^T 01:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand the question. Please try and explain again. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. From the RfD, I assume that you placed the {{db-author}} on Veiculo Lançado de Microssatelites. I did not realize that such tags were actionable unless placed by the author, and I wondered how you got around that. Did you link to the RfD in the template's "rationale" parameter? (I'd just look for myself if the history didn't disappear upon deletion.) -- ToE^T 06:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah. Now I get it. I probably should have worded the deletion rationale better. The person who nominated the redirect for deletion was its author and the redirect had two edits in its history, the creation and the nomination. G7 applies for explicit and implicit requests (such as blanking the page). Since nominating a page for deletion fits the 'explicit' side pretty well, I deleted it. Protonk (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah. Now I get it. You're an admin. (I missed that point.) In general, I assume that in cases where an admin is not watching, a non-admin, non-author editor could tag an article with a {{db-author}}, providing as rational a note and link to where the author had requested deletion (provided that the G7 conditional apply). Thanks. -- ToE^T 08:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes. That happens a fair bit in new page patrol/RCP. A user will make a page, realize something is wrong with it and blank the page (for a variety of reasons). The patroller should see this, make sure that the page meets the crtieria then add the g7 template to it. For a deletion discussion it might suffice to make this fact known in the discussion. Either way, the edit summary should make it clear to the admin why the tag is being placed. Alternately you may {{db-g7|Add the explanation right on the template}}. Protonk (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If those two animals mean that much to you, why don't you be both? That way, when you are feeling sheepish you can be badgering any accusations that you are just a sheep. And when you are badgering any opposition, you can use the excuse that you are also a sheep (but don't mention that you are feeling sheepish).--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Is_there_a_consensus_forming.3F.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as a fyi, Lawrence added that pic of IS/LM you wanted for Keynes's bio. There's now a main article Post-war displacement of Keynesianism which mentions South America. Am still planing to write the Keynes and Maths article if you dont create it first. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Don't wait up for me. The only econ/math article I'll create in the near future is at User:Protonk/BTM, and I'm not sure when I'll buckle down and make it. Protonk (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't me, I swear... ;-)

The template people use to make an entry at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Current requests is either broken or they aren't using it correctly. Take a look at the last two requests to see the squirreliness. I'd fix it, but templates and I don't get along really well. :(--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• See here. It's kind of a struggle. I talked to Thumperward (a template heavy editor) and he basically said that if entries aren't filled out the template will fail gracelessly. I don't know what to do. I want people to be able to click a button and open a section in the right place. But I don't want a big mess if they do it wrong. so I disabled most of the template coding. that should solve some of the issues. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking at it. KISS is probably a good principle for this template, since it will be mostly frustrated people using it. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I confused by all the mystery, too. I thought a simple piece of paperwork to check out the suspicious looking unblocks was just that. Apparently not.—Kww(talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello--I got what I was seeking out of the Economics & COI discussion (at least I think so, maybe someone else will explain COI to me in the future which will make me understand Gwen Gale's position). I don't know if you're seeking anything concrete, but the tone of your posts is hinting that you're losing your cool-cool which I much admire. Unless you're heading somewhere you think is useful in the discussion, I'd recommend dropping it, because I don't see it going anywhere useful by natural means. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt anything good will come of it. I guess I'm exhausted w/ people either engaging in circuitous argument founded in what appears to be a minimal understanding of the subject and I'm letting that show. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as aside - that debate is a perfect example of why most academics I know (and I'm one of them) *never* contribute to their own subject specialisms on wikipedia. Who on earth, after 15 or 20 years of being an acknowledged expert in an area, wants to spend their time arguing with some nutter who'd read a couple of websites and not understood a word of it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Selection bias dominates, but I find that the practicing academics (at least the ones that self-identify) on wikipedia tend to be pretty calm about disputes originating from a broad spectrum of understanding. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if WP lasts another decade or so and academics grow to realize that WP is a resource of first resort for their students (more so then they realize now). Maybe we will see more subject matter experts drop by to make changes. As for your general complaint, I think there is some truth to it though I will readily admit that plenty of folks come to wikipedia with the force of their degree behind them rather than the force of published material. Protonk (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests#Cmflh -- so true, but you've gotta admire the undeletion reason. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still trying to figure our what a "facebook universe" is. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading your later comments I get the sense there was a shift in your thinking after this. I could be wrong ... but is your current thinking that those are more like "things to watch so we'll know if it's succeeding or failing", or "reasons it can't work"? I'll watch in that thread for further comments. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'll make some there but the big complaint was about the suggestion of some lower percentage criteria at RfA resulting in promotion to assistant w/ later autopromotion to admin. Any plans that don't involve that will only invoke some of my complaints. It is also an expression of my wish that we could just hand out editprotected, block, delete, see deleted etc. to people who can handle those tools. Whether or not that is viable for all subsets of the admin toolbox is up in the air Protonk (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think you and others have absolutely made the case for a trial of spinning off some userrights, and I volunteer to do what I can to help the trial work. I think the ideas about coaching and lowering the bar (selectively!) at RFA are in addition to, not instead of. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(I am cross-posting this to User talk:Protonk and User talk:Jayron32, because both editors raised similar concerns.)

Since this is a case of invoking WP:WAX, I decided to take this to your talk page, rather than further cluttering the AFD discussion.

The problem with blogs (and personal websites) is that they tend not to get a lot of coverage by mainstream media (aka "reliable sources"), and zombietime is no different than others. Oftentimes, coverage of blogs is not on the blog itself, but rather on a controversy kicked up by the blog. Take for example Americablog or Raising Kaine or Citizen Kate or Leonardo's Notebook or Politicalbetting.com, several of which have absolutely no significant coverage of the sites themselves. Americablog, in particular, set off two firestorms with its revelation of Jeff Gannon's previous career and the revelation that phone records could be easily purchased (re:Wesley Clark), but the coverage of the incidents never addressed the blog itself, only the controversies. If I were to run Americablog through AFD, would you participate in the discussion, and what would your recommendation? This is not me being POINTy, it's an honest question, because there are a lot of really crufty blog articles out there, and this one at least has significant coverage by real news sources, rather than self-references, blogs of dubious provenance, and dead links to god-knows-what. Horologium (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• The insinuation is that I would be more likely to hedge on claims about RS for a lefty blog than for a right wing blog? Eh. Maybe. But here's my view. Insofar as it is hard to find sources on blog that are reliable, that's tough. Maybe we ought to have fewer articles on blogs. The ones we do have tend to be supported by minimal RS and filled w/ claims from the blog itself about its own actions. Insofar as that is the case I feel that we ought to be very careful. Making those articles NPOV is almost impossible because the content itself stems from controversy or editor opinion. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what I intended, although I can certainly see how you could read that from the blogs I selected. (FWIW, there are many more articles on left-leaning blogs than on right-leaning; most of the non-notable or marginally-notable right wing blog articles have been nuked or merged out of existence, and I don't have a problem with that.) Americablog was the first blog that ran through my mind when I saw your (and Jayron's) comments about coverage of the blog itself, since all of the links in the Americablog article discuss controversies arising from the blog's coverage, rather than the blog itself. A quick look at the AFD (which closed as No Consensus) had a nice keep suggestion from DHartung, who came up with a couple of additional citations; they didn't discuss the blog itself, yet that was enough to tip it to a no consensus (the other two keeps were one who cited Dan, and probably the most notoriously radical inclusionist to ever contribute to Wikipedia. It seems that the standards have changed since then. I am going to see how this AFD plays out, but I will probably be sending the five articles I cited through AFD over the next week, one at a time, and work from there. There are a few righty blogs that I may tag as well, but most of them are pretty solid (Instapundit and Power Line, to name two examples). Horologium (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that Americablog afd was pretty sorry. I don't think that sources discussing controversies pursuant to an original cause count, for the reasons I outlined above. WP:N is there because we need sources to get articles which meet NPOV/NOR (not to mention V). Otherwise we are too reliant on editor interpretation and assertions from the subject. I will also admit to a minor bias. If the article was a 4 sentence stub with a short explanation of who/what/where/when instead of a run-down of sordid controversy paired with a giant lede image, I would probably have considered things differently. That's not a rule anyone should espouse or live by, but it is just part of how I see things (And is difficult to disentangle for me). Protonk (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you taken another look at the article? George and SlimVirgin have been working on the article, and one of the most obvious changes is a significant reduction in the size of the photograph in the lede.

On a totally unrelated note, I have a pair of questions for you. Is your username pronounced "pro-tonk" or "proton-k" (or something else altogether?) And should I use male or female pronouns when referring to you? Horologium (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Proton-K. Protonk (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just some journals and papers that are related to the conversation on the project page [2] also [3] and [4] - I suppose all these qualify as pretty mainstream. Peace. skip sievert (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Of course they do. But they seem to cover resource economics generally (as an outgrowth of Hotelling's rule), or in the case of the second journal the energy market (As in utilities). What is missing is a connection between those journals and the words in the vast see also list you have added to Natural resource economics. Look at the 'most cited' links in the two elsevier journals and you will get a flavor for their focus. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticed the talk at RFA about productivity and couldn't help but chime in -- the increased productivity thesis actually strikes me as consistent with the graphed trends. Now, it's tautologically true that the pool of active admins do all the active admining, and thus if the pool shrinks, the average share of the work per active admin increases. But that's not a disturbing trend since if productivity is increasing they're not necessarily doing any more work. It could be that the share is increasing while the amount of work/time needed to complete that share is decreasing. Furthermore, it appears to me that the largest increase in admin productivity is coming from a few outliers -- namely the handful of highly admin active bots. Thus, while your average share of the workload is increasing, it could be the cast that your median workload is decreasing. In fact, it could be the case that the share and the actual workload is decreasing for the bottom 95% of admins. (I thought I saw some distribution data not too long ago, but can't remember where.) Another issue is that admins strike me a bit like lawyers, in that much of their work is not intrinsically needed, but they have created self-perpetuating processes ie as a collective, they generate enough demand to fit their numbers, regardless of the work truly needed.

I must say that as someone more frequently a reader than editor these days I don't encounter a problem with the actual product from a lack of admins. Aa deficit of editors and a surplus of drive-by taggers certainly sully the product and a trend I've observed is that when the two come in conflict, administrative processes tend to back the taggers -- if this trend is widespread, it would actually be beneficial to further reduce the number of admins, though I have no data to back up my observation (from a relatively narrow sample). I'm not going to weigh in at WT:RFA, but my own experience suggests we should be increasing content work and that increasing admins may actually be an impediment to this. --JayHenry (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as a fun exercise, if you want to scratch the economic muscles in your brain, consider if the world population grows to 10 billion by 2050 and then begins to decline by 2% a year. Now consider how many key assumptions about economics -- assumptions about job creation, housing policy, trade policy, education policy, entitlement policy, finance -- no longer make any sense. I did a paper on this once, and it occurs to me it's a rich area for study because it's a real possibility in the future and there's not yet much thinking on it. --JayHenry (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• A few replies:
  • Yes, I should have made clear my assumptions (or conjectures, I guess) about distributions. I think both productivity and time spent are increasing for those outlier admins as the total number of active admins decreases. this isn't too problematic until we lose those outliers. I have no idea whether more or less work would cause those folks to quite earlier or later, but they are gonna quit sometime.
  • Your point about reader impact from admin backlogs is well taken. Some of the stuff, like the temp userpages is work expanding to fill the time. I'll never delete a temp userpage. It's a total waste of my time. Likewise some other backlogs and some of the wp drama stuff. But some of the work is important. Important work that is easy and well structured (here is where some productivity gains are important...SPI, AIV and AN3 are much easier to handle than a few years ago) gets dealt with. Less important work or less easy work gets shuffled around. Sometimes that doesn't matter and sometimes it does. Though plainly really hard stuff like improving articles, offering peer review or checking sources is more backed up.
  • As for the last point...I dunno. Admins do less content work, but I don't know that we can entangle that from "folks who are inclined to be admins share a burnout arc". I was probably already burned out by the time I got the bit. That's sort of nihilistic, but it fits with my general pessimism about the future for this place.
• I mean, if I were a benign dictator, I would just ban people who caused trouble on nationalist or political articles or anyone else that groused too much. But then I probably wouldn't be very benign. :| Protonk (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being part of initiating that RFC. Folks'd been talking about it at least as early as when he came back, but I think a large deterrent to it happening was the drudgery of collecting diffs and articulating it all clearly (probably by design). Anyhow, thanks for your part in it. I hope it is productive. --EEMIV (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ikip (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah now... I wasn't trying to hurt anyone, so I have to apologize if I came off strong. A Nobody - or anyone - is a perfectly valid subject for an RfC/U, when someone has a legitimate complaint. And there are a lot of legimitate complaints somewhere in that dogpile. AN really did a good chunk of what people are bringing up, and I'm never entirely sure what his motives are in some of what he does. I like the guy for the good he does, so I won't speak ill of him, but like with Pixelface he would be a much better crusader for inclusionism if he could keep the crap down instead of inviting trouble and making enemies. And I knew something was coming because he was pushing way too many buttons, so color me unsurprised that an RfC/U was held in his honor. :)

There are a few differences between AN and Gavin's case. With Gavin's second RfC, hardly anyone showed up to defend him. 2, maybe 4 people at most spoke their mind in his favor, and not very loudly. We had a laundry list of complaints yeah, and probably went overboard, but the "charges" here would take a few pages to print out. And it wasn't a partisan thing along the include/delete lines as far as I could tell, because we were able to keep it focused on his behavior - thanks in large part to you. This one is just a big mess, and there is a lot of "inclusionists stick up for each other, and deletionists pile on the lot of them" sort of element going on here that really didn't happen with Gavin's. Honestly, I do mean it, ArbCom would probably do a lot more good here than a three ring circus. I don't mean to be hurtful, but it's how I feel.

I was initially going to come up with something much like what Peregrine said, but I thought the better of it, and gave in when he came up with the succinct version of what I was thinking. ;) I don't know, maybe I'll come back when the dust has settled a bit and see what is left over and maybe I'll see something of more value than what I thought I saw. BOZ (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, and this would have been and still may be just as ugly or even worse. It's the neverending battleground, man. Ever wondered why I've purposefully never edited WP:FICT or its talk page? You can lose your soul getting involved in that shit. I'd rather do what I came here to do. BOZ (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's partially why I stopped editing FICT myself. But it's really frustrating to attempt to show that someone is contributing to a toxic environment and have responses along the lines of "an RfC won't work, the environment is too toxic". Apologies for bursting in on your talk page. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a "request for comment" - I commented, and I leave it up to others to judge the worth of my comments. I don't want you to think, in any way, anything I said was directed towards you. Going from past experience, and what I've seen you write on the RfC, I think you have your head in the right place. I may not agree with all of your viewpoints, but I have come to respect them. Maybe you'll prove me wrong, and something substantive may come out of this. It's just that a good percentage of the people who rushed in to push their viewpoint aren't helping your cause, and I hope you can see that. If/when the Merridew RfC goes live, it'll be more of the same except from the opposite perspective, and I suspect I'll want nothing to do with that one either. BOZ (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, and I overreacted in that post on your talk page. I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, water under the bridge, hope it's mutual. Have a good night, and may tomorrow be a better one. :) BOZ (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well I guess I have a lot of trouble just offloading responsibility. If one substantive difference between Gavin's RfC and this one is the relative absence of defenders then I can hardly say that would be grounds to excoriate the original dispute summary. And I don't know how to get around the "inclusionist/deletionist" sitcking together other than to present the most compelling argument possible. I have a lot of trouble believing the argument that fewer diffs is better. One argument can be made that we are shotgunning things, but trust me, this RfC has been pared down from its original size.
• As far as I'm concerned, we don't do any good by throwing up our hands and saying "well, there is evidence of disruption but this is bout to fall on party lines so I'll endorse an opposing statement made largely on party lines". That's a shitty thing to say, but if there really is no recourse apart from arbcom then we have to address that. I don't think we are that far along. Maybe I'm totally off base. Am I? Protonk (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wish I knew, man, wish I knew. This one was going to be a mess no matter how well you handled it on your end. Honestly, I haven't even read the whole of the complaint, because I haven't had the time to sit down with it! Yeah, sometimes the TLDR version is less helpful than a succinct and to the point version. :) We had to do the same thing with Gavin's; if you thought we had too much "and then he did this, and then he did this, and he's smelly too" then you should have seen the previous drafts! And the falling on party lines is why I specifically didn't want to endorse anything on there; some of the supporters of the complaint made good points here and there but I don't want to look like like I'm supporting them in whole, and I likewise felt that a lot of the opposers were overlooking a lot of things so I didn't really want to support them either. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't I guess. The problem is you have some 15 or 20 mad as hell people that don't want to listen to each other, and if they keep that up the RfC will accomplish nothing. I hate to say that ArbCom is the next step, but it may be. Who knows; Gavin has left us almost completely alone in the nine months since his RFC2, so we'll have to see where AN takes it after this. Maybe just the threat of ArbCom will shake him up and make him fly right. BOZ (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to use NPWatcher, but it just doesn't work. I log in as normal, I get a list of new pages, and all of the buttons. I can see the pages in the window and can navigate and edit manually via NPW. The problem comes when I try to click any of the automated tagging buttons. I get an error message: "Log in error - unable to log in. Please report this error!" I have left a bug report about the problem, but don't seem to be getting a reply. I'm logged in to NPW and Wikipedia, so I don't see what else I might need to log in to... any ideas? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 14:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Huh. I think I spelled it right. I don't actually use NPW (I have a mac). I just noticed a while ago that it was linked from WP:PERM and folks weren't responding quickly enough to requests. Try going to User:Martinp23 and following the instructions there to email the author or you could find an active user of NPW and ask them if they have had the same problem. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me of a mentor I once had. I just find it absurd that people don't want to use biographies. It was once thing in Nicolo Giraud where the most amount of information on the boy was 2 or 3 pages in any source, and a book on the history of pederasty mentioned him with references (along with other critics either responding to or outright refuting the idea following it), but that essay doesn't even hit those requirements. I find it odd how people's understanding of an expert in a field has deteriorated. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to be a function of the internet (or at least that's what I gather). We (online denizens) seem very skeptical of expertise, for good reasons but also for some not so good reasons. There is some assumption among users of online forums that the expertise of someone like Robert Caro or Rick Perlstein can be ignored if it produces a conclusion at variance to one that I can drum up in a usenet posting. That there isn't some benefit from poring over decades of archives and tapes and conflicting accounts. This thread on WP:V captures some of that. A neat book about those dynamics is Cyberchiefs, though I recommend you read everything but the wikipedia section, which isn't terribly enlightening. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I requested NPWatcher permissions two days ago and haven't received any kind of contact since then. I was just wondering, if you aren't too busy, whether or not you can take a look at my request. Thanks!

Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 23:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I can summarise the issue quickly. I am writing here again because the discussion is still growing like crazy.

• The discussion is about an article published in the Newspaper "Daily Pioneer" and is being used as a source for the Sathya Sai Baba article.

• This source - 'Daily Pioneer' was extensively discussed here in the WP:RS. [5] for a week and was declared as a reliable source by outside wikipedians. This source has important refutations to Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba.

• In the earlier RS discussion it was mentioned that removing this source 'Daily Pioneer covering Alaya Rahm trial' will be a BLP violation to the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba'.

• Some users who did not want to comply with the earlier recommendation started the above discussion. They did not provide correct links and facts. Their problem is that the article mentions "Robert Priddy's name".

• Who is Robert Priddy?. Robert Priddy is an 'Anti-Sai Baba activist' well known in th web. He started edit-warring in the wikipedia 'Sathya Sai Baba' article as User:ProEdits since his name is mentioned in the above 'Daily Pioneer' article and wanted this source declared unreliable.

• In the RS board you will see the arguments and counter arguments about this source.

• We cannot change a source from reliable to unreliable because its being opposed by Priddy and his group. Wikipedia publishes what other reliable sources publishes.

• Robert Priddy's group has been opposing it inspite of the administrator MField mentioning in the talk page [6] that the source cannot be declared as unreliable for that reason and they are desperately trying to declare this source as unreliable in the RS board. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Casasgaspar seems be sitting completely unattended.—Kww(talk) 11:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Handled by EyeSerene.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, I just answered. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I understand why you think that I may be a sock of guitarherochristopher but I can assure you that I am not, Not only do our writting styles differ but we have diffrent intrests. I love history, I have always liked it since I was a kid, I also have a nack for micronations, Alaska and the western USA, Im quite shure that guitarherochristopher does not like any of those. and guitarherochristopher made his designed his userpage after I made mine look like it is. Now I can tell you that we both apparently like Coldplay but the similaraties end there. If you have any other questions or comments about this you can either answer on my talk page or your if you like (just send me one of those you have new messages on Prontonk's talk page things) see you later!--Coldplay Expert 23:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How goes the standardization of the VG data Randomran started? Since he hasn't shown up it has kinda stalled and I wanted to finish it up so we could discuss its impact as it was very near completion.陣内_Jinnai 02:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking again.陣内_Jinnai 23:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how he accessed the raw data.陣内_Jinnai 06:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He did it manually, going through old AfD logs. Each month takes about an hour or two. Protonk (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Was your block of WebHamster in response to this,[7], or were you responding to this?[8]

--Malleus Fatuorum 07:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with this notion that in order to be legitimate, a block must happen right away. We're all volunteers, and sometimes there aren't very many people watching the store. We try to solve problems as they come up, but this doesn't always mean it happens right away. I think Protonk did a good job of making his block message clear. This is a pattern of bad behavior, coupled with an apparent lack of interest in correcting the problem. Friday (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Richard_Gere_and_the_gerbil probably explains the train of thought reasonably well. I'm unsure if there are implied questions or assumptions here, so if you have any questions which you might like to ask explicitly, then just go ahead and do so. I can't promise you will like the answers, though. Protonk (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt I'd like the answers any more than you'd like the questions, so I'll keep my opinion to myself for now. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you mistakenly thought me to have retreated because you mistook (and perhaps still mistake) why I regarded it as important that academic and peer-reviewed publications not be declared without empirical support to be most reliable. The steadfastness of the commitment of other editors to declare either just that or to go further to utterly discard all other “reliable sources” ought to strongly suggest to you that I was onto something, that I didn't just mistake the intention of the wording, and thus why there is no grounds for inferring some sort of retreat on my part. —SlamDiego_←T 11:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• You just seem to be arguing against a proposition that no one is really advancing. In that case you "win" by default. I see the basic statement "peer reviewed sources are more reliable, all else equal" as pretty benign. "Reliable" is a term of art specific to wikipedia and doesn't really have any connection with the capacity of the underlying subject to produce truth statements. There is arguably a related hierarchy in Cultural studies, though the relationships are less strict. I have no doubt that some editors want to legislate a problem away (where that problem is marxist criticism or austrian criticism or just general criticisms of formalism), but that's hardly new and it is neither a penetrating insight nor a death knell for the attempted guideline. I mean, this whole discussion basically stems from a dispute between LK and VT over a few articles. But that aside I happen to think MEDRS is a great guideline and where possible, other guidelines like it should be written. Insofar as we can make some net progress toward a guideline like that, I'm happy. Protonk (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The statement that you see as benign isn't what's being pushed or opposed. If you put it up as a suggestion, the very same party who are instead pushing the statements that I oppose with try to effectly remove its protasis (“all else being equal”). The fact that the problem isn't new doesn't mean that it isn't there and manifesting itself with pronounced intensity. —SlamDiego_←T 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that, in a post on my own talk page, I have pointed others to your statement at the current RFAR page, because I believe that you have, perhaps unintentionally, discussed a problem that the current Arbitration Committee identified and has been trying to address in various ways throughout this year - that is, the issue of appropriate and proportional response to unacceptable behaviours. It was a very interesting story to read, and I thank you for sharing it with us and with the community. Risker (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll reply briefly on your talk page in a bit. Thanks for the comment. Protonk (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yo, I wonder if you know what the setup for archiving of fulfilled WP:REFUND requests is? There's an archive from April to July at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archives; I can't find where the more recent ones have gotten too, but I noticed you archived some of them lately. Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure I just deleted those. I'm not convinced that refund needs an archive system (though if it does I would just set a bot up to archive requests after X days). I may have intended on setting up a bot at the point when I "archived" those, but didn't follow through. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. I was looking because one of the refund requests I had seen recently came up in an {{adminhelp}} request, but I couldn't find where it had been dealt with. I think an archiving system would be relatively easy and without much cost; might bring it up at WT:REFUND at some point. Cheers for the response,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think fram is ahead of us both. There is something on the talk page about best practices. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but edit warring continues on the project homepage. LK (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll leave a note there, but I've taken the project page off my watchlist. I have no desire to endlessly argue with Slam or argue at all w/ skip. Protonk (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised at your comment in support of Physchim62's out-of-context harassment. Reasonable discourse requires politeness, not claims that I propose to "pander to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience". Brews ohare (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't particularly see the trouble if he feels that your proposal does just that. He certainly shouldn't be constrained from saying it for fear that someone might be offended. You have sought review from a number of admins and arbitrators on this matter, so I suggest you just sit back and see what that results in. Protonk (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd expect an Admin like yourself to wish to promote discourse, not dissension; it seems pretty clear to me that dragging the Case/Speed of light into a perfectly simple RfC is not relevant to the separate issue of how to use a one-line Edit Summary, and the phrasing "pander to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience" is inflammatory. Perhaps you are expressing a misplaced loyalty to Physchim62? Brews ohare (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can expect me to promote the encyclopedia. Where that involves privileging discourse, I will do so. The theory of yours that I have some "misplaced" loyalty to Physchim62 seems to mainly involve jumping to conclusions about my motivations. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Since you seem to be active in approving users for NPWatcher, I was wondering if you can head on over to the NPWatcher page and approve (or perhaps disapprove) my request for the tool? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

...List of recessions in the United States could use a glance over from someone familiar with general economics. I've been looking at it so long my eyes have started to bleed. --JayHenry (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I think you typed too many tildes here.   pablo_hablo. 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks much. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please revert this. I've started what I think will be a more productive discussion.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As you're working on the article now, I was wondering if you had experience with copyright questions. See my comment at the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (4th nomination) labelled "Comment re: Copyright issue". I'm not really sure what's required to properly attribute text created under CC-BY-SA on another site. Is a ref tag adequate - or do we need to link to that page's history? Or somehow flag it here? As far as I'm concerned, the notability question is at least sufficient now for a week keep, so it's just a matter of cleaning up the attribution issue to avoid copyright issues now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't see that comment. Opinions differ about what is necessary to avoid plagiarism and copyright infringement, but basically a wholesale rewrite will do the trick. I've attempted to remove portions where the article appeared to be speaking in a "voice" that wasn't our own. Please feel free to tweak as needed. As far as attribution goes, a link will suffice to another wiki (if it was a CCBYSA soruce w/o an history, then we would have to specify authors). As it stands, we are better off making sure that we don't incorporate any text from that website beyond what we would for any other website (in other words, best practice is to pretend like it isn't a CCBYSA license). Protonk (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Take this for what it's worth: I think your responses at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 are likely to turn out to be ultimately counterproductive. Lord knows, I agree with their general substance; and, frankly, I'm astounded at the deference that DGG, among others, is shown there and elsewhere (I've seen a number of comments of his at AfD that amounted to "It gets Google hits, so sources must exist," and I've seen him reject copyvio and other speedy tags, along with prods, without evidence of due diligence in investigation). Nevertheless, the back-and-forth there seems to have reached a point of diminishing returns. It seems to me that at this point the best hope of attracting opinions, on either side, that are not mere reflexive expressions of Wikiphilosophical stances is to just cool it. Deor (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. I'll probably throttle it back and try not to respond to that stuff. But it's exceptionally galling to see DGG lecture jack over that vote. Protonk (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I answered to your comment, but I doubt we will ever understand each other. Thanks anyway, it was helpful. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Protonk. You say the correct venue for the Skipsievert affair is RfC. I'm not familiar with these boards, and didn't realize I had posted to the wrong one. I apologize if I was abrupt, but the prospect of having this situation extend indefinably into the future is irritating. If you feel the current case is a waste of time, then how can it proceed from here? Can the case be transferred (copied across) to RfC at this stage? Are you serious when you say it should not run while the mediation case is running? Can you clarify what you are suggesting with your oppose. I presume you do not think Skipsievert is fine as he is, and should be left to run amuck. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You are still opposing the An/I. Both sunray and myself have asked you to clarify your position, which is still an oppose, and is therefore still attempting to torpedo the An/I. I find it strange and questionable, given that you are an administrator and that this is an administrator notice board, that you cold shoulder our concerns by choosing not to respond, and by not at least offering some alternate way we can make progress if the An/I is to be abandoned. Is your silence meant to indicate to us that yes, you are attempting to torpedo the An/I, and that you don't care where that might leave things? Even if that is your intention, it is rude to leave us dangling in that way, and not tell us directly. Have you actually examined the evidence, including the further evidence from more recent events?--Geronimo20 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it when I find the time and inclination to do so. I'm sorry that other things have occupied my interest. Protonk (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. You are seriously interpreting my silence as an attempt to "torpedo" the AN/I post? That's not a rhetorical question. Protonk (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I know. I still want an answer to my question. How is it disruptive to disagree with a position you have staked out? How is it some misuse of the trust that was placed in me as an admin? Protonk (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not a good idea, but I'll try to respond to your questions anyway.

• How is it disruptive to disagree with a position you have staked out? – I can't answer that since I never said it was disruptive.
• How is it some misuse of the trust that was placed in me as an admin? – again I don't know how to answer a question about an issue I never raised.
• You are seriously interpreting my silence as an attempt to "torpedo" the AN/I post? - that I can answer.

The first two posts above, made by me, were posted early in the An/I when the issue may well have been in the balance. You had commented early and prominently in the An/I, and then opposed the topic ban, maintaining this "isn't the right venue, we haven't explored or exhausted DR and there is an ongoing mediation with skip as a party." That is, the An/I was brought to the wrong venue, at the wrong time, and without attempting appropriate prior dispute processes. What can that mean other than that the An/I should be terminated, ie "torpedoed".

That naturally concerned me, since it was my error. As I told you above, I do not have experience with these boards. That is why I wanted direction, with some urgency before it was too late, on whether it was possible to move the issue to the proper venue. I thought I could get the needed direction from you, since you were an administrator, and I thought that is the sort of thing administrators are here for. You didn't bother to reply, even after intervening periods where you were active on WP. Since, as things stood then (and still stand now), your position was that the An/I should be abandoned, I posted my second comment above in an attempt to elicit a response from you. In that comment, I asked: "Is your silence meant to indicate to us that yes, you are attempting to torpedo the An/I?" Of course I didn't believe that was really your position, because it wasn't consistent with your following comment in the An/I. I was just tying to get you to clarify your position, since you weren't making sense on the An/I. Actually, there were two issues here. I also wanted to know, along with Sunray, if you were really opposing the topic ban, since your subsequent statement seemed to suggest you did think action was appropriate.

You did eventually reply, but only to say you would respond when you found the "inclination", that is, when you can be bothered. And you still remain silent about the questions I originally asked you. You post only to ask me questions, including strange questions I can't answer. Anyway, I no longer want answers to my original queries, since events have moved on. I refactored a comment above before I knew you had already read it and reacted elsewhere. The comment was "disappointing and obscurantist behaviour for an administrator". By that, I meant I found your silence impolite, because, and this may be just a personal position which needs abandoning, I thought administrators would model the tone on WP with exemplary standards of civility.

Finally, you have escalated the matter, by asserting on the An/I that you oppose the topic ban partially because I have asked you questions here. No matter how inept of foolish I may have been to try and talk to you here, that is not a rational reason for opposing the topic ban. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the timing of my comment at the AN/I post gives you some right to come to my talk page and berate me for refusing to enumerate my reasons. Obviously you have that right already, but I don't really like the implication that you get to come here and harangue me because I expressed a view contrary to your desired outcome. As a matter of fact, that very response makes me less sure that a topic ban is a good idea for skip.

Second, yes I did precisely mean I'll get to it when I can be bothered. Topics involving skip are about at the bottom of my list of things to do and apart from making my distaste for flash-mob topic bans at AN/I known, I didn't want to embroil myself in the issue too much. And I won't.

Third, I was responding exactly to your comment that my comment was "disappointing and obscurantist behaviour for an administrator", which I felt was unreasonable and inaccurate. I wanted a response to that on my talk page because you came here looking for answers. I'm also not sure at all how some imagined standard for civility relates in the slightest to how I should feel about topic banning skip or how hasty I should be in responding to inquiries on the subject. Above you use the word "rude" to describe my position. I'm not sure that comports with any definition of rude I have ever seen. I articulated a desire to see a user conduct RfC first and a fear that an ongoing mediation would be disrupted by the threat of a topic ban, which is exactly what happened.

Lastly, your reframing of my questions seems odd, considering that while you insisted you can't answer them because the implied allegations in the questions are untrue, you proceed to admit that you characterized my position as rude and my silence as unbecoming of my admin status. You aren't required to answer the questions I pose, but the hope is that you see that I'm not being deliberately disruptive. Rather that I am standing by a stance that topic ban requests at AN/I, absent clear and incipient disruption (which would constitute the eponymous incident) are unfair to the accused, difficult to enforce (absent some overwhelming consensus) and can be disruptive to ongoing discussions related to the accused. I fail to see how that is disruptive or rude. Protonk (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I "reframed" your questions? Where? You continue to insist I said you were "disruptive", indeed, now escalated to "deliberately disruptive". Again, I said no such thing. I didn't cross my mind that were disruptive, merely that you were impolite by withholding information about your own position and the way the admin boards work.

I used the word "rude" in the phrase "it is rude to leave us dangling in that way", referring to requests from both sunray and myself for you clarify matters that were, at the time, current. That was because you remained silent after periods where you had been active elsewhere on WP, so it was clear you were just ignoring us. I was not describing your "position" as rude, merely that particular instance of behaviour. I also now appreciate what I did not know at the time, that you were under heavy pressure in the RW.

I said, in the withdrawn comment that bothers you, that I found your silence "disappointing and obscurantist behaviour for an administrator". And that's true, that's how I felt. Though I guess you are right, and I have unreal expectations from administrators. However, in your second to last sentence, you did finally respond to the concerns I originally brought to you. At that point you ceased to be obscurantist, and gave me the information I needed to know. Thank you for that. Had you said that out the outset, we might have been happy lads.

Finally, you said your "hope is that you see that I'm not being deliberately disruptive". To repeat, I never did, and do not see you as being disruptive, let alone deliberately disruptive. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But note that the points in my 2nd to last sentence are identical to the ones I noted in my original post on the topic ban subsection at AN/I. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

So I needed my nose rubbed in it :) However, you did enlarge on the original post. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Mediation has already been aborted by the departure of one of the disputants. If you'd like to be included in the remounted Request, please add your account to those listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#New Mediation. —SlamDiego_←T 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I don't have the project page on my watchlist anymore, so I would not have seen that otherwise. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Skip's reply to an explicit query confirms your your inference that he intends to continue editing the Guidelines, even with a knowledge that this will preclude a Mediation amongst remaining parties. I am going to note this at the WikiProject page and then for a while narrow my attention to the articles that I maintain. —SlamDiego_←T 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that a full protection on User:Kww/RFAspam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) might not be a bad idea. Could you do the honors? Check to make sure you aren't freezing vandalism first.—Kww(talk) 19:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Semi might have done the trick, but it isn't a problem. :) Protonk (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

206.74.104.225 (talk · contribs), AKA RAKROD (talk · contribs). Fancy taking a look into this? I'm not getting anywhere. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't actually looked at the merits of the facts he is claiming, just trying to massage the editing direction to someplace positive. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Protonk.

Please consider my restore (undelete) request here. Thanks. (Never mind.)

P.S. I was about as surprised as you were, which is why I nominated. I assume I have little chance at an RfA.

Oh, and please consider unprotecting {{PD-CAGov}} or otherwise responding to this comment I made. I've resurrected the template on Commons, and unless there's a backlash, want to do the same here on en. next week.--Elvey (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Can you give wikilinks to the templates for me? That will make deleting, unprotecting them a lot easier. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Please just unprotect this.--Elvey (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good day, my apologies if there have been any misunderstandings here, but you reverted an edit I made to the userspace where I removed this comment:

"(This is much more fun than being bayonetted by User:SarekOfVulcan (talk) and LK (talk) in a hand-to-hand urban warfare battle in order to get some sense onto the Inflation article :-) Inflation!! What the hell! That´s Bernanke´s job!:-)"

Personally I think that comparing editors actions as "bayonetting" and indirectly accusing them of "urban warfare" in editing a contested page is an attack. As you reverted a large number of edits, I was wondering whether you reverted my edit by mistake, or whether you believe that the above comment is appropriate? I understand that editing others userspace is generally not done, but I feel in this case that baiting other editors with inflamatory comments is not suitable for such space.

Additionally I am confused because after the reversion, a new user account accused me of making personal attacks on my talk page. Their only edit other than to their user page is the comment on my talkspace, so I am rather confused and seeking clarification. My apologies if I did the wrong thing. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• [[9]] Thats the diff of the edit I made in case this helps you. You didn't specifically revert my edit and rolled the entire page back so I cannot provide a suitable diff for your revert. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• A few things. First, editing another person's userspace is almost always the wrong idea. None of us own the 'space' that we occupy, but we tend to form strong associations with what is ours and what is someone else's. Second, the phrase you highlighted isn't particularly concerning. It's hyperbolic language from someone who seems incapable of dealing w/ disagreement, not personal attacks. The phrase "urban warfare" and the word "bayoneting" are meant to be taken figuratively. P7 isn't literally suggesting that LK and SoV are fighting house-to-house and even if she were, who cares? Lastly, it is important to be exceptionally ginger about applying bright line policies like WP:NPA to muddled situations where someone is criticizing an action or an institution. NPA is a big hammer because it has to be. when it is misapplied to redact strident or unpleasantly worded criticism, we make ourselves look foolish, alienate outsiders and reinforce our insular views.
• I honestly feel the best way to deal with "venting" or that sort of discourse on a users page (or talk page) is to ignore it. Remove the page from your watchlist and don't let it rile you up. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Ok, thanks for the clarification. Also, I am not personally involved in the issue and so it isn't riling me up, the scenario was raised on Wikiquette Alerts which is what drew my attention to it. In retrospect, whilst I was acting to attempt to diffuse the situation, I see it could also have the opposite effect, my apologies. I will be extra careful with userspace in future. --Taelus (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely you meant 604,800 full seconds... Chillum 00:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind if I used The Final Destination (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) as an example of undelete, merge, and redirect at WT:Articles for deletion#A deleted article has useful text, so...?? I'm planning to use when I worked with MBisanz and Michig on Black Market Hero. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Go right ahead! Protonk (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I have done so. Flatscan (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for standing up for me on my talk page. For some reason, Gwen has been giving me grief since earlier this year, and has formed very negative feelings about me. Anyway, the reason I dropped by is that for some reason, your signature on the comment you left on my talk page was not correctly formed. I've fixed it, but since it's not quite kosher to sign other people messages, I thought I'ld drop you a note to let you know. regards, LK (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I note with some amusement skip's plan to have you topic banned from economics articles. Send me an email if that goes to AN/I, I'd love to see how it comes out. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your conduct is being tangentially challenged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attacks at AfD. [10] (I have not been party to the discussion.) —SlamDiego_←T 02:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. Geronimo's accusations about me conspiring to help Skip are...inexplicable at best. I probably shouldn't comment there, given that all I would have to say is that SS is an intransigent editor who doesn't share my POV. not sure that would be too helpful. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Protonk, I saw that David W. Mullins, Jr. had been waiting a long time at WT:GAN, and was about to start a review. However I found some gaps that I think would currently cause the article to fail: no private life at all; gap in M's career from 1974-1987, incl nothing on contributions to academic literature on economics / business; no commentary on M's achievements, failures or significance. It might be good for you to fix the gaps before someone else starts a review. --Philcha (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't want to suggest that I have been 100% exhaustive in my search, but gaps in the article reflect gaps in the sourcing. What you see cited in the article is effectively what is available in sourcing. He received little to no media attention prior to working at the treasury, little between that post and his appointment at the fed and again very little until he left for LTCM. He was (apparently) briefly notable during those transitions but was otherwise very private. I don't get any sense from either Dunbar or Lowenstien that he was a major source for them or a subject of any importance at LTCM--this isn't a slight, we are comparing him to Scholes and Merton and Meriwether. What little commentary there is comes in the latter part of the article, noting that the venture at LTCM probably destroyed his career (more neatly than it did Meriwether or most other major partners). I have speculations beyond what the books say, but I can't include them in the article and I have to temper the extant criticism with the fact that Mullins is still a private figure. So what's left is the very limited material on the page. Protonk (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know who either of those editors are (apart from the obvious--I know one had the RfA I blanked and protected). Protonk (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think his point is that the argument for blanking the RfA was that the editor had left Wikipedia, but the editor continues to sock and has never left anything. Enigma^msg 03:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • In either case the edit war over the page was counterproductive. I'm not too interested in engaging the back and forth. Protonk (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure, but you blanked before protecting. Enigma^msg 05:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Meh. It's WP:WRONG either way. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of Gender aspects of globalization in China; could you also do it for the talk pages of User talk:Dagypt/Gender aspects of globalization in China which should be merged to Talk:Gender aspects of globalization in China? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sure thing. I was hesitant to do so because I hadn't looked at the contents of the respective talk pages when I made the merge. Protonk (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Only a couple things to fix here, then it can be passed. Poking you in case you didn't see it. Wizardman 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your misgivings. Right now the only thing we seem to accomplishing with this is driving away CSD taggers. I have started a thread on naming names in our writeups here and would really appreciate your input. Another idea would be to not name the account you used or the users involved at all and document one's experience without identifying the specific encounter in any way. But then we have to keep people honest somehow. If anything is clear from experiment's results, though, it is that we do have a problem that needs addressing, so it would be nice to make this work. Thoughts? — Jake Wartenberg 22:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually undid my comment, so people might get confused as to who you're talking to. If you'd rather, you can go ahead restore and strike my comment, but I consider it sufficiently ill considered not to be in civil discourse.--Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll probably just mark a follow-up comment rather than do all that. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure.--Tznkai (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You've made substantial changes to the article Men's_News_Daily, deleting much of the existing material to the point of leaving a sub-standard article - more of a short comment. Would you please discuss possible changes to the article on the article's discussion page if you feel that they are appropriate. Much effort was put into producing the original article, short as it is, with the content supported by external material and providing a broader set of information to accurately characterize the publication. Some suggestions for additions to the article are already on the discussion page, and it seems, if it needs anything, it needs more rather than less. Rogerfgay (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Um, sure. I feel that most of the content in the original revision was borderline promotional, discussing the nuance and nature of the commentary on MND well outside of what the article requires or the sources offer. Our articles should state the facts neutrally and clearly and do little else. Where significant in depth commentary exists, we should summarize that.
• Also, writing articles in a neutral fashion offers a strategic benefit. I can tell you from personal experience that an article written in the fashion that MND was will find itself in a deletion discussion far sooner than an article written carefully and tersely. This isn't a threat, I have no inclination to bring MND to articles for deletion, its just an observation from having watched deletion discussions for some time.
• If you feel that I am wrong then I implore you to build the article up, but I want you to understand the nature of our expectations and the possible consequences for expanding the article in that fashion. I only reverted the second time on the off chance that you hadn't seen my comment on WP:REFUND. Protonk (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that in the wake for this warning[11] regarding the first AfD USer:Verbal has chosen to launch a second AfD on Human Disguise immediately in the wake of a DrV on the first which returned a no-consensus verdict. Artw (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• My response is basically the same as Spartaz's. I don't think it is a terribly wise course of action, but it wouldn't be helped by my waving the bit in his face or closing the discussion early (Which I'm sure will be done by someone else). My advice to you and all of the folks commenting there would be to tone the hyperbole down a few notches. The easiest way to make clear that someone is behaving in an extreme fashion is to be dispassionate by comparison. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems clear which "side" is being "extreme"! No doubt this will get raised again in a month or two if the article is kept but the problems are not addressed. (That isn't a threat, and I made an offer to hold of for a month after being asked). Best, Verbal chat 08:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI: I emailed the arb-com-list last evening, and I´ll let them deal with it. Also FYI: not that it is relevant to the case, but I am female, and would prefer not to be referred to as "him" ;). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry. I normally use some mix of they, she/he, etc. (but not something silly like xe). Sometimes I slip up and use the male pronoun or female pronoun exclusively. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider your closure. Black Kite's closure reason was articulated by Wikidemon and Guy, and addressed by Bigtimepeace. It should have been allowed to stand. ~YellowFives 03:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

x2. Can we avoid the inevitable DRV? Even though you may disagree with Black Kite's decision, the path of least resistance here would really be rolling back to his initial close. Tarc (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the assertion that I have somehow asserted my opinion (Which I plainly said would lead me to delete) into the close inexplicable. I reverted the close cause I have no interest in dealing with another partisan shitstorm, but I still think there isn't consensus to delete. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. I hope I did not give the impression that I thought you were biasing the closure with your opinion! I just thought Black Kite should not have been overturned. ~YellowFives 05:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, just a note to say I appreciate the effort you put into the reasoning in your closure. Obviously I think you were totally wrong ;) - but you made a very good attempt to balance the issues in a difficult situation. Nice work and I'm glad you reverted your close. :) Franamax (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks for trying to do the right thing. Sorry you got clobbered for it. If Wikipedia is going downhill, it is going to be because administrators who try to apply logic instead of personal emotions (Like you, I disagree with the redirect--I don't think the actions of one lone individual can constitute terrorism) are shouted down by hordes of other editors guided by their personal biases. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For exposing himself to great personal criticism while attempting to mediate a nasty controversy in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies and Guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I see it more as the barnstar of blundering into a situation while failing to properly assess the history.  :) I would much rather live in a world where the redirect didn't exist (mostly because the "terror" vs "murder" debate is obviously driven from right/left political pressures), but redirects are cheap. This decision falls in a long line of mine where I come under fire from both sides of a debate. I am unsure as to whether this point toward wisdom or folly. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you piss everyone off, you're probably doing the right thing. :) Franamax (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm fairly certain I'm one of those who fired upon you, I'd like to say that I really respected your closing rationale. It made sense and was just as valid as either of the other two. My only objections were to Jclemens revert and the fact that it wasn't undone, which would technically be a wheel war... Anyway, you handled yourself well and I appreciate your involvement. AniMate 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• • re: not understanding the history before jumping in. Yeah, I've got scars from doing that in the Orly Taitz AfD. Yech. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

--Cybercobra (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible name for the subpage: "Feedback". Suggested instruction text for the IP feedback page: --Cybercobra (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is used solely for providing feedback, suggestions, or criticism of the "Wikipedia:About" page.

If your post is not going to be a comment regarding the "Wikipedia:About" page, please refrain from posting here as your post will likely be deleted as being off-topic.

• To submit new encyclopedia content, see How to create a page.
• To get answers to factual knowledge questions, inquire at the Reference desk.
• To ask for help using Wikipedia, see the Help desk.

Thank you for taking a balanced view at my RfA, and noting your 'minor reservations' - I'm not going to rush into admin decisions. You're right, I can annoy both ends of the deletion spectrum in equal measures. I wonder how much of my support was based on the principle that 'my enemies enemy is my friend', not that I'm really 'enemies' with A Nobody or Ikip! Fences&Windows 22:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect more than people would like to admit but less than what is necessary. Good luck w/ the bit. Protonk (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why the article was deleted. Does a two year old AFD exclude the article from recreation ad infinitum? Falcon8765 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, but it doesn't help that the revision deleted in the AfD was almost identical to the revision that was added recently. If you want, you can help improve a draft at User:tothwolf/Bash.org. Protonk (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured, just wanted clarification. Thanks. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Protonk, Please take a look at the Afd [12]. I think you'll find there are two sources, one from the Star (front page apparently?) and one from the Globe and Mail both pretty much solely about the topic. I think that will address your sourcing concerns. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm posting to you because I too am concerned about the way the ArbCom RFC was closed. I am concerned that the decision to move to a system of secret ballot seems to have been a "done deal" and one that lacked consensus.

I've prepared an RFC (another one!) the issue. I haven't publicised it yet but would greatly appreciate your opinion about it. Is it be worthwhile opening up and RFC on the question of the decision to the community? Do you have any advice on the design of such an RFC? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

you're right, of course, that speculation on speculation etc. etc. is a silly cycle to get into, and doesn't go anywhere - I should probably avoid hitting 'save' when I get that tingle that sort of says 'yeah, this may be an interesting thing to mention, but does it actually go anywhere?' :-) - the ability of a wiki to enjoy (and amplify) a good broo ha ha is ever surprising. Hope you're good regardless :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• thanks. And I hope I didn't come off too haughty/unpleasant when suggesting that you were being absurd. The whole this was out of order! Protonk (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I've known you to be a thoughtful admin, but I have issue with your block of Die4Dixie. Please rethink this block. Take a look at the long discussion at ANI, there is no consensus for an indefinite block, and I really don't believe he was intentionally being malicious. Hopefully when I wake up in the morning this will all be cleared away. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

:(

Don't think too hard, I think you're at the right step here. It's called dispute resolution. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about a community ban for Die4Dixie at WP:AN/I. As the last administrator to block him, I think you should at least be told about it. AniMate 18:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw when I got home. I left a prickly/unpleasant/indignant (YMMV) message on Wehwalt's talk page about the unblock (after seeing the thread). Protonk (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do read my comments at that discussion when you get the chance. Would appreciate it. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have said before that should anyone offer a request for my being desysoped I would approach an uninvolved administrator and go by their judgement of the matter. I note you are an administrator. Would you be so kind as to review the matter? John Carter (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• though this is a pretty low bar, I doubt CoM would treat me as uninvolved. It should probably be someone else. I will note that this particular request appears to be meritless (as do the overwhelming majority of his requests to desysop random people). Protonk (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What's a liquid thread? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Liquidthreads is an extension Site here to mediawiki that replaces the normal section editing for discussion pages. It's likely that in the medium term future this extension will be added to wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

At ANI, you have said that I have been involved in an ARBCOM case. Perhaps you are confusing me with another editor, and that has contributed to this situation? If you can have a neutral conversation, I would welcome the chance to speak about this. I would perfer to wait until I have spoken with Hochman before addressing that, but anything else I would be happy to comment on. If you would retract the arbcom statement, I would appreciate it, as it has only served to villify me, and it is not accurate--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps the other editors who saw it will find their way back to it. Hope springs eternal. Cheers.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)