User talk:Protonk/Archive 4

Invitation

You are invited to look at my user page, where I am making an attempt to start a new article on Money and the Money Supply. Your advice and suggestions are invited Martycarbone (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Finally, someone else who gets it. Otto4711 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)b

yes. and I'm watching the discussion you're having in that afd. Amazing. I wouldn't have the patience (as you can see above). Protonk (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

TPH

It appears that TPH is headed for adminship -- just let him sail across the finish line. You don't need to plead his case, because his contributions appear to be a strong selling point. Be well and don't take this (or any Wiki stuff) too seriously. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, the route to the finish line took a very different turn (one that I genuinely didn't expect to see). Somehow I suspect there will be a seventh go-round in the not-too--distant future. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Help! with Charles R. Black, Jr.

Could you give me some advice? I'm pretty new at the whole BLP policy thing, and I just came across an article which seems like a walking violation of BLP policies. Charles R. Black, Jr. is a disaster -- I removed straight out several pejorative statements, but I don't know what to do about t<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>he lobbying section, which gives undue weight to his uglier clients, without mentioning any noncontroversial clients at all. I don't know how to proceed. Should I just go ahead and cut all the unsourced material, or try to find sourcing, or how? I'm asking you because you're a major presence on several of the boards ... and I don't know how to begin except excising the entire section, which seems to me would be removing good information along with bad. Best, RayAYang (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

GAN

Hey, could you please take another look at Talk:4chan#GA_Review? —Giggy 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to chat with you

Hey there, Protonk. I'm going offline in about ten minutes or so, so don't feel "rushed" to respond to this. I've noticed your name in several discussions regarding talkpage tagging, specifically the LGBT tag (Crist and Craig articles, mostly). There are several editors that have been upset by these discussions. I don't think they are upset specifically at you, but I'm trying to help the project formulate "inclusion criteria" for their tag, and I'd like your input. Anyway, I'd like to get a summary of sorts from you, here on your talkpage, as to what the root of the problem is, in your opinion, with articles being tagged by a WikiProject. I've witnessed you being very spot-on in many unrelated discussions (hell, I think I even gave you a barnstar), and in general, I've found you to possess an excellent combination of civil, intelligent, and reasoned behavior, including in the most recent discussions. (hard to come by on-wiki these days, it seems). Can you formulate for me what exactly you find to be the problem with a Wikiproject (any wikiproject) tagging an article they feel falls under their scope? I don't mean that as a trap question, I only got involved in this following the talkpage discussions on the Crist article when I was asked for to act as an "outside opinion" by Moni3. (diffs on request, but my talkpage archives are where the bulk of our conversation happened over the last 1-2 weeks). I firmly believe there is more common ground here amongst a group of dedicated editors than there is division. But at the same time, there are some very exhausted Wikipedians, in the LGBT project, that feel that they've been bombarded (not by you, just by you as an example) regarding their tagging. The project, as far as I can tell, is weary of explaining over and over again, and defending, over and over again, the same issues. They (myself, Moni3, and Benjiboi, mostly) are trying to find a solution. You are of course welcome to decline my request here, but I hope you don't. Quite simply, I'm asking for your side of this, in your words, in summary? Keeper ǀ 76 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This may come out really rambly, I'm just having random thoughts, I should probably use my sandbox. My apologies in advance for what I'm pretty sure is going to be lengthy. I have a question, probably rhetorical, and I don't know how to word it, so I'll put it in the form of a scenario. Let's say there's this Republican, high profile guy. He does all the Republican-y things right. He votes how he's supposed to, opposes what he's supposed to, supports what he's supposed to. Then, some rumors pop up, in very scanty, yellow places, like Enquirer's and other catbox liners. Vehemently denied of course. And preposterous that we would even consider including those rumors in a BLP article. They are rumors. They are political leverages, mudslings, "confidential source" type shit. And, consensus forms quite quickly, that "that pesky IP" that keeps writing 'Senator X is gay! I read it!', really needs a good block. So we block. More IPs/spas/editors show up, readd it, in some form, in some other form. Now it's of the utmost seriousness. The page gets protected instead of handing out detention slips to too many "potentially good" editors (the bounds that we stretch good faith are aggravating sometimes, when intentions are so blatantly obvious). But all along, the rumors don't go away, and they don't go into our article. Nor should they. But then, the rumors get legs. Not because they are true, they are merely rumors. But they've got legs now, google searches are getting into the hundreds if not thousands, and New York Times picks them up. Now, the New York Times (or fill in the blank here - ABC news, FOXNews, whatev), certainly doesn't support the rumors. Heck no. In fact, they do a whole piece about how this poor senator is being incessantly dogged by rumors, so unfairly! The New York Times doesn't confirm the rumors, merely confirms that the rumors exist, in a a reliable source-y kind of way. Wikipedians, being as smart and all-knowing that they are, read the New York Times, see that Senator X is confirmed to have been dogged by rumors of homosexuality or homosexual behavior, and gasp, but they're Republican! What do we do? (that's the question part). I have an idea, I'd like yours as well. We definitely need someone to keep an eye on the article, because now we have a reliable source that confirms that Senator X has been dogged by rumors of homosexuality. Something might hafta be added to the "personal life" section, or the "controversy section", or the "criticisms" section that says that reliable sources have confirmed that Senator X is being dogged by rumors. The LGBT WikiProject, being smart Wikipedians, with interest not necessarily in Republicans, but in the homosexual community, its issues, and its causes, has decided to tag that Republicans article and others like it. Why? To perpetuate the rumor? No, absolutely not. That's a really bad faith thing to say, and it is certainly quite understandable why someone would be upset by that insinuation. So, if not that, then why? What's the good faith reason, is there one? I think so. It's done to protect Wikipedia, Wikipedia's integrity to the outside world, and to protect the BLP article. To keep Wikipedia out of the "rumor game". The article gets tagged, which means it gets bot-sorted for importance and tracked, watched by several new interested editors. Nothing else. It doesn't get categorized. Nothing (beyond perhaps, based on the proliferatioin of the rumors, what I stated above) gets added to the article. The LGBT project, in the same way that it protects every other article of interest to it, protects the Republican senator's article from all kinds of allcaps things: UNDUE/FRINGE/NPOV/BLP/V/N/RS/ETC/ETC/ETC. I am definitely a defender of BLP, I find it to be, in the big picture, our absolutely most vital protection for both ourselves as editors, and our budget at the WMF level. I agree with you and believe that article talkpages are under the BLP umbrella. We can talk about the Senator, but we can't write "Senator X is an asshole" and expect it (or our editing privileges) to stay very long. A talkpage template, for a WikiProject, that has a clear rationale for why it is there, does not perpetuate or confirm the rumors any more than an IP posting "Senator X is an asshole" confirms that Senator X is an asshole. But a talkpage template for an internal WikiProject does not get removed the same way that someone typing "Senator X is an asshole" gets removed. The template is not causing harm to be there, it is not attacking a living person (or any other subject matter) to be there, it is there to protect the integrity of the article (and perhaps, bonus, improve it! That project, I believe, has more GA/FAs than most others, some damn fine writers work there). I've posted to Moni3 directing her here, and to your reply on my talkpage as well. I firmly believe there is middle/common ground somewhere here, and enough of it for everyone to stand on it. And when the next Dateline NBC special pops up that confirms that rumors exist of some straight guy's orientation, that middle/common ground can be pointed to. If for no other end than to prevent the same debate happening over and over again, for your benefit, for mine, for Moni's, and for the WikiProject's. Keeper ǀ 76 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's hard to answer. I hope I was coming across as being open to discussion on the issue, from this hypothetical I get the feeling like I'm the Ogre (Not stirring drama, just mean that the 'opposition to maintaining project integrity' doesn't get to be the good guy and have the girl in this story about Senator X.  :) ). I also hope that I didn't come across as assuming that tagging an article was a bad faith action meant to spread rumors about the subject.

Placed in a hypothetical situation and worded like that I don't know where to come down on the issue. Even in the 'real world' (by that I mean wikipedia), I am much less concerned about an LGBT tag on Larry Graig's article or Mark Foley's article than Charlie Graig's. Perhaps this has little to do with the project and a lot to do with the relative ludicrousness of their denials. I'm not sure.

Now to the heart of the matter (I see that the discussion continues apace on your talk page). Project attention clearly improves an article. More strongly, every project deserves to be able to operate freely (in other words, I think we should strive to treat WP:LGBT just like WP:WINE). Well, since I've moved away from answering this to copyediting an article I can tell I don't really have fire in my belly for it. I don't know if I'm right about this in a broad sense. The more I think about this the more I see it as a narrow, case by case consideration which should have relative deference to the projects. I'll respond on your talk page in some meaningful fashion. Protonk (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Protonk, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Terror Titans

I'd hardly think WP:CRYSTAL applies as it isn't "unverifiable speculation" and is only months off and therefore is "certain to take place" (given the lead time on comics the art would have to be pretty much in the bag by now) and it is getting a lot of interest in the comics world.

Given the fact I was going to start an article anyway before I saw it had been AfDed I did make sure I had got more information than the previous version contained (previously the source was a link to a discussion forum, which I agree wasn't adequate).

Anyway, it isn't a big deal, I can just restart it again when it can't be be deemed crystal ball gazing - I just hope it being deleted twice now won't make it more problematic. (Emperor (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

I removed the original "source" (not even sure if it was working any more) and added in things like this recent interview [1] at Comic Book Resources which also finalised the date. Issue one is solicited and up on the DC site [2] (I prefer not to link to those pages as they have proven to only last 5 or 6 months - which ends up with a mess of dead links down the line. However, I can do if that helps). (Emperor (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Pinoy

Hi, I've rewritten Pinoy and would appreciate you revisiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinoy to see if your concerns have been addressed. Banjeboi 02:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Advice on ANI?

Hello--I'm hoping you can give me advice on whether to participate in the ANI discussion regarding User:Skipsievert and Adam Smith. My instinct is to stay away and hope it works itself out. Skip and I probably have the greatest antagonism of the involved editors. But I do feel like Skip's being disruptive and wouldn't like to let it slip based on my lack of participation. Anyway, I have no experience in this from before, so I'd be grateful if you have advice. (And don't worry about it if you don't have advice.) CRETOG8(t/c) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I went ahead and threw in a comment. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

mathematical economics

Hi Protonk, geez, what a tough subject. Inchoate is right. It occurs to me that I learned economics as an almost exclusively mathematical subject. From calculating the elasticity of supply and demand curves to linear regressions to Pareto optimal solutions to... it was all math (which led to the rather ridiculous situation where many of my fellow graduates could do all sorts of fiendish calculus and stats, but I suspect to this day don't really know what The Fed does). So the question of what belongs in the overview is really tricky. How much of the math from micro theory, macro theory, and econometrics? And how much of the history? I mean, obviously not all of it, so where to draw the line? Yikes, I've got no clue. I will have to ponder this one! --JayHenry (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got a couple of books on the way, namely Economic Methodology:an inquiry. I've also started to dig through journals like The History of Political Economy and the Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Some promising, some not so. The history should be the easier part. The harder part will be what to include in the explanation (as the "application" section is woefully lacking at present). you are right when you say that so much of economics is math that it becomes hard to define what is "more" mathematical than other parts. do we take the academic view and treat everything within the scope of The Handbook of Mathematical Economics as mathematical? Do we take the outsider view and treat everything more difficult than systems of two linear equations as mathematical? I don't know that there is a consensus in the literature. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one idea (and sorry that I'm not yet of any more use than this) might be to look at the Table of Contents of the text book and imagine the key points of each chapter summarized in just a few paragraphs, and perhaps use that as the general structure for the article. I'm not sure how applicable it would be, but it seems like the best way to approach an overview topic like this. I'd think that picking a few big examples for an application section (while linking to pages on some more) would be sufficient. So maybe a few big ones. I remember spending weeks on IS/LM, Heckscher-Ohlin, and painful semesters on linear regression. Econometrics is such a big part of it that I'd think that could perhaps be its own subsection. --JayHenry (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into that. as for econometrics, it deserves to be a part of the article in some sense but there actually is dispute among historians of economics as to whether or not econometrics is "mathematical economics". Puzzling. Protonk (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. Because econometrics is about interpreting statistics, not about mathematically modeling economic theories. So you'd use econometrics to get something you could then plug into a model, but it's not part of the model itself. Okay, I'll need to read up on this before I'll be of any help. --JayHenry (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a doozy of a discussion about ISLM, see History of Political Economy 39:1 DOI 10.1215/00182702-2006-024, Keynes, IS-LM, and the Marshallian Tradition. Protonk (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice job you've been doing on Mathematical economics. I've been doing only hit-and-run editing since outside life has been keeping me from thinking deeply about anything here. I've long had the impression that (within the field) "mathematical economics" is more specific than just the use of math in economics. As you've noticed above, econometrics is generally not placed in the category. Unfortunately, it's only an impression and I haven't been able to validate it. It might be that (within the field) "mathematical economics" just means "economics which uses math that's harder than most economists can handle". If that's the case, it's not a real distinction. Anyway, nice job, I'll jump in if I have anything real to add. I don't have a ready source for the Dow book, but maybe can find something else. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:-)

thanks! By the way, why aren't you an admin yet? You'd be better than most of the current crop; you're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. —Giggy 07:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't accept a nomination until I have been here 9-12 months. Besides, RfA is a nest of vipers, IMO. Protonk (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of us would be happy to support all the same! Shereth 18:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the compliment. :) Protonk (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you've only been here four months, because I felt like I've seen your name around for much longer than that. In my opinion it's the culture of adminship--the double standards that admins and their Wikimates enjoy--that's busted and in some cases getting worse. I could go on at some length about my theories here... But like you say, the place isn't filled to the brim with jerks. I still have hope. Encyclopedia-building-non-admins of the project unite! (Hmm... need a better slogan than that.) --JayHenry (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in digging up some references on Posthumus, I found out that his book on pricing (which probalby has an english translation) covered data from the exchange in ampsterdam on tulips during the period of the bubble. The name escapes me but it is on the Posthumus article proper. Protonk (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

His price data (imagine the years he spent trolling through disintegrating archives of 300-year-old business contracts) are the only thing that made the modern analyses possible. His contribution is perhaps worth a sentence or two in Tulip mania's modern views section. I'd initially left him out because I didn't know anything about him, and because his work was so much older, but I see from your article that he was an interesting economist in his own right. --JayHenry (talk) 05:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Goldgar mentions him in the notes and I believe one of the two reviewers of his book (see the bio refs) mentions the tulip craze. I'm going to pull an article he did on it in 1929 from the library tomorrow, maybe that has something noteworthy in it. Protonk (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier

Hello, Protonk. I can see that you've put a lot of work into the Math econ article. It's paying off. Do you recall any time earlier this year seeing the article when it had a figure showing a time series of data? I'll look for your answer here. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I added an image from What the Yield Curve does (and doesn't) tell us early on but removed it later when I noticed that the author produced the image under contract for the government, not as an employee (I didn't re-add it as fair use). Is that what you are looking for? Protonk (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I was surprised that it did not show up in the earlier history but can see why it was yanked there. (I had thought that the history preeserved earlier images, but that seems not to be the case here.)

Another matter: The math-econ texts I've seen either make no mention of econometrics or distinguish it from econometrics (as in Chiang, "Mathematical Economics versus Econometrics" section, pp. 5-6). The narrower use of "math econ" as not including econometrics might be noted in the article with Chiang as the source. That might be a basis for not having a separate section on econometrics or having it only to distinguish the two, as Chiang does. I do think a discussion to distinguish the two would be very appropriate. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

following this up on the article talk page. Protonk (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks. Sometimes I don't notice that because I have a 22" monitor and don't have to scroll it myself. ;-) Tan ǀ 39 20:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This must stop

IT seems that, unless we are lucky, the same people who are obstructing AFD are going to obstruct any positive change to the criteria, can we really more people to join the debate to make sure this doesn't happen? I would hate to see our reform squashed by the same people who violate the spirit of AFD. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the AfD wording change. In that case I think that you should finalize a wording that you would want and visualize (but don't reveal) a less strong wording you would be willing to compromise to and initiate an RfC. Hopefully that will bring more people from a wider spectrum into the issue. Until then it is just the people who comment heavily on these AfD's commenting there and it would appear to outsiders that our views on the subject are fixed. I would also suggest that you soften the mentality you appear to have toward defense of these spurious arguments--while I agree that the arguments you list in the wording change are means to disruption I think they are not disruption in themselves.

the proper response, it my opinion, to wikidemo's complaints is not to push harder and paint AfD as 'in crisis' but to suggest that what you propose IS descriptive and needed. We should be able to show that disruption of a process that is meant to handle hundreds of articles a day absorbs considerable amounts of resources and clouds issues. We should be able to show that the community view of that disruption is overwhelmingly negative and so can be described in this policy change. We shouldn't treat AfD as though it is in a crisis (because it plainly isn't). Instead we should suggest that AfD can be made more accessible and less adversarial if disruption is not tolerated. This comment "There needs to be an understanding of what proper AFD behavior is, just like there is with Featured Article Candidacy, where it is not ok to have inactionable objections, so there is ample precedent for a guideline on behavior." is a good example of how we should advocate this change to the community.

so my thought it just file an RfC and see who comes in. Protonk (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Butting in here. Don't know much about XfD (don't know much 'bout history o/^~), but my guess is the argument "look at FAC" won't carry a lot of weight. FAC is by and for a perceived "high end", 2k articles out of 2.5 million, and people who come there come in some sense voluntarily. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we don't mean the quality, just the bit about how opposing for opposition's sake is ignored. And interestingly enough, FAC has a lot more in common with AfD than GAN does (Because the stakes in outcomes are so much higher). Protonk (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that, I agree that XfD could work better than it does. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated

File:W40000 Symbol.png

File:W40000 Symbol.png

The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated!

• Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
• New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
• Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Protonk (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.

Mathematical economics

Robot has been GAR'd; I probably need to spend some time saving that before I come back to Mathematical economics. Great job on Problem of Apollonius btw. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the add for my efforts on the Bhopal disaster. I want to go through the rest of it, but suffered a little editing fatigue at about the half-way mark. I'll try to find time to revisit it later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aremisasling (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

LGR

Yeah, it's time he was ignored. Shunning could be the way to go. Corvus cornix_talk 18:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's time to follow my own advice. Ignoring, it will be. Corvus cornix_talk 20:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just let him hang himself. He's on pretty thin ice. Corvus cornix_talk 21:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's unlikely to happen. My suggestion really is that if you think he's treating you like crap to bring it to another level. He's already made it clear that he won't respect dispute resolution measures begun by "deletionists", that doesn't leave too many avenues. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

HOET

Not trying to be rude at all. Maybe I got the wrong template? It's "sofixit". I don't have much time for people who put up tags, and let other people do the work, I'm afraid. I don't mind you saying what you'd like to see and making suggestions on the talk page, but with just a tag, with you saying it isn't neutral, I don't really know what you want, do I? I just read it over the paragraph again (I wrote this whole page, btw) and am not really sure what you want. I think I described that period pretty well, marginal utility and all. I only poked a bit of fun at Jevons with his sunspot theory. But that's something that I think is interesting. Why don't you tell me what you had in mind of doing? :) Wikidea 21:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, again, part of the tag is the work. Part of the tag is a "buyer beware" for the reader. also, I'm not really someone "just putting up tags and leaving the work for others. I'm attempting to improve an article and I went to History of economic thought for some info. I found the section on the marginal revolution lacking, so I put up a tag and went back to the work I was doing. I'll put a specific complaint on the talk page. Protonk (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you should raise issues on the talk page. Just tell me what you want to see, and I'll see what I can do. Once again, I have a short temper with people who put up tags, and, no, it's not a productive thing. Especially from someone who seems to be doing good work, you should know better. Why don't you just say what you'd like? Wikidea 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you put that tag up again, I will be rude. Tell me what you'd like, or say what you have in mind that bothers you. Wikidea 21:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. I don't really need someone coming on my talk page telling me how short their temper is. A short temper is your problem, not mine. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me a while, and I'll fix all that for you: the first one however was actually just almost a quote from Daniel Fusfeld.

I don't have a short temper, btw. I have a short temper with idiots who put up tags. But obviously you're not an idiot and you're not putting up tags, you're talking. So you've got nothing to worry about! All the best, Wikidea 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to worry about either way. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

More to the point {{sofixit}}, while in the spirit of WP:BOLD, is kind of a big "fuck you" to a user who applies a tag in good faith. The purpose of a wiki is that anyone can fix it but also that anyone can comment. No article is immune from criticism and exhorting a user to help does not confer an immunity on that article. Protonk (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

John Baird (Canadian politician)

Thank you for deleting the unsourced information in relation to his personal life, which is also irrelevant to how he presents himself politically. His sexual orientation is a matter of personal choice as to disclosure, and he has chosen not to address this one way or another. My concern is that your appropriate deletion now seems to be subject to some anonymous "back and forth" by juvenile politicos, in the context of an anticipated federal election. How does one protect a page like this from this type of lowballing? I also don't particularly care for John Baird, despite having made a positive news addition to his page, but don't like what is being done to him here.

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your suggestions here. I suspect there will be a number of regrettable incidents like this as both the Canadian and U.S. elections draw near.

Forgot to sign...

Dreadarthur (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Userfied content

Not sure if anybody if userfied User:Protonk/NES-on-a-chip to you after its AFD, but there you have it. Cheers.--chaser - t 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was cruising through my old contributions about 2 weeks ago and noticed that no one had useriied it, but I didn't bother to ask. Thanks for the help. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

VSCC edits

Hey, I added a bit to Vintage Sports-Car Club and even created Veteran Car Club of Great Britain from some info in the sources I dug up. Did you have a direction you wanted the first of the two articles to go or some offline sources that might help improve either of them? It's not really my field, per se, but I've got some knowledge. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My effort was a quick stub to cover a glaring red-link. No more than that, thanks for what you have done. I have neither ownership nor other ambitions for the article other than that someone else takes it up. You have! Best Wishes Saga City (talk) 08:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Just wanted to know if you have some sources in mind beyond what is there. Thanks anyway! Protonk (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Article classifications

I noticed that you are classifying a number of articles as "start class" or some similar tag. I just want to know what it means and what it's about. Tealwisp 02:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

sure thing. the article tag has a link to the Assessment scheme for articles. I basically looked at each 40K article and judged if it was very short and limited in content (stub), longer but undeveloped (start), or more developed (C, B, etc). Articles that were basically lists were classified as such. You can look at the Warhammer 40,000 project page for more details on the changes I've made in order to help this project get back on its feet. Does that help to answer your question? Protonk (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

John McCain reply

Please consider editting in good faith. An editor's reputation is damaged by intentional lies. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Protonk (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it was a mistake accusing me of violating the 3RR? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a mistake at all. I see 6 reverts in about 30 hours. I also noted that you seemed determined to continue to insert the content (from your comments at WP:RS/N), so I felt that you had violated the spirit of the three revert rule. I noted as much in the report. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There's another intentional lie. Adding sources is not a revert. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Look. this is a page for reasonable discussion. If you don't think you can be reasonable, then you don't have to post here. It doesn't help to call my claims "intentional lies". I'm not the bad guy. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just someone who spends time at the reliable sources noticeboard and I had an easy answer to your question there. There is a reason I don't spend my time on the political pages or the Global warming pages or the Evolution pages, because I'm not interested in the drama. So lets cut to the chase. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Adding sources is not a reversion. Don't talk to me about being reasonable if you're saying I've reverted 6 times. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That applies to ONE content insertion and one reversion. once you get past the point where it is clear that someone holds a reasonable objection to the inclusion of content, re-inserting it is edit warring. And I didn't "say" you've reverted 6 times, I included the evidence. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• *Holds up banana* And this is the knife he used to kill her! AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Were those reverts performed by another user? Are the times wrong? Is the materially being inserted fundamentally different at any point (aside from the 6th, which I didn't add)? Protonk (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've editted 5 times in the last 30 hours, I can't dispute that. You're calling adding sources a revert, and it's not. That is my point. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I never said anything about sources. If you inserted the text "Was killed by John Wilkes Booth" with sources to Lincolns biography 5 times over a ~24 hour period after other users reverted it, it would still be edit warring. The purpose of 3RR isn't to ensure that articles are sourced, it is to ensure that back and forth over content doesn't destabilize an article and clutter the history. Often times the "wrong version" will be protected by an admin just to have the content be stable. In this case if you and one other user were reverting each other over equally factual claims, you both would be in violation of the 3RR. This isn't about who is right and who is wrong. this is just about reverting in a given period of time. That's why I told you that mentioning the "disputed nature" of youtube as a source wouldn't help you. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Curveball award

The Curveball Award I award this to ProtonK for his hitting-the-nail-on-the-head question at an important juncture here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Woo-hoo! Protonk (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Computational Forensics

Could you please advice as a human being. Not only referring to all the nice wiki page with the guideline that I read already. I try to write an entry and I received copyright violations because I used text from myself authored, peer-reviewed and by IEEE published material. Now, I'm advised that I shall have published material first. So, this is catch-22. You must not merge with computer forensic. This is a mistake often made, I want to solve it. But the snippet I wrote was also claimed to be copyright material although it is not true. For the whole discussion, please see also: [3] and [4]. Thanks! -- Coreyrfreeman (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

archiving talk pages

You seem to know your way around the finer details of wikipedia. How does one archive a talk page? User Talk:Tealwisp/Space Marine Chapters needs to be archived desperately. Tealwisp (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith thanks

I wanted to briefly thank you for your prompt and rigorous review of Adam Smith. I'm amazed at how useful it is for a third-party editor to suggest such important improvements. I will be working on addressing as many issues as I can over the next week. Minor question: is it customary or acceptable to edit the transcluded page inline when I address each point (and I'll sign after each addition, for clarity)? Thanks so much. -FrankTobia (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever works for you. I find that inline responses help things stay clear. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've addressed a number of points of your review, particularly in Sources and Style. Some questions came up, which I addressed in-line. I'm wondering if you can give it a once-over, and see if you can help with any of my questions. I'll be addressing the other points to the best of my ability in a day or two. Thanks again. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurt point

Hey there, to answer your concern without muddying up that candidate's RfA. Kurt is one of scores of people who weigh in at the RfA, and there is no reason for him to be targeted as the butt of the jokes. These cracks at him have gotten out of hand, which is why I said what I said. I can AGF that the candidate was not intentionally malicious, which is why I put my vote where I originally wanted to based on that person's history. Whether it is Kurt or anyone else, I don't like seeing anyone being set aside as a standing joke. That's me -- I'll gladly make a fool of myself (which I do on a daily basis), but I will never make a fool of someone else. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but kurt isn't just another person weighing in on an RfA. We treat him like that because we are ultra-sensitive of suppressing opinion. Kurt's opposes are:

1. Self-nom: although it is worded in a fashion to mention the act not the actor, the basic idea is that the nominator is power-hungry--an accusation made with no individual evidence.
2. Huggle/TW/AWB/bot owner user: Although this is less common, Kurt used to oppose these candidates with one word: "robot"
3. Admin coaches: Again, designed to target the act not the actor, Kurt still basically says that a candidate who accepted admin coaching is a "cheater"
4. CDB: Depending on the answer (this is the only one that is contingent, and as such I have no problem with it), kurt will either oppose without a personal attack (usually if the candidate says nothing, says too much or just says that CDB's are never ok). Sometimes he opposes with the implicit statement that the candidate is just being a vessel for policy rather than thinking for himself.

They never vary. They are applied to almost any candidate without regard for individual merit. They reflect far more on Kurt's philosophy toward authority and wikipedia than they do any reasonable judgment on the candidate. There is also no way for the candidate to "win". Unlike age questions (which are stupid), the candidate will get an oppose from Kurt as long as he is running. With the possible exception of answering the CDB question "correctly", there isn't a way to get around it. None of this means that Kurt should be silenced. But we have gone too far around the bend in protecting Kurt from censorship that we have not allowed the community to express disapproval of his actions. RfA may not be the place for it, but it is largely the only place that the issue crops up.

The solution (a topic ban for gross violations of WP:POINT) is not likely to come about. We are (as I noticed) so sensitive to the appearance of censorship that we often support objectionable articles or actions that we would otherwise deal with (were they not objectionable) on the basis that we aren't censored.

to me the real problem is fatigue. Kurt has done this for so long that the people who would have said something have all stopped. New people show up and say something, or vote support in protest, or make fun of kurt, or whatever and the old people rush in to let them know that their actions aren't appropriate. Let's take a "protest" vote. If Kurt votes against a candidate and I vote "Support in order to cancel out an oppose which will never switch" (or something to that effect), the house will come down around my head. People will come out of the woodwork to tell me that I can't make a WP:POINT of my vote and that I can't single Kurt out and so forth. From my perspective, this is completely off as it is likely that Kurt's vote will have gone relatively unnoticed. No one will lambaste Kurt for making a point (CDB oppose), insulting a candidate (all the other opposes) or just opposing without some reasonable justification. They won't do it because they are tired of it and because it doesn't produce results. so we end up with a situation where Kurt can make the votes that he desires and that criticism of those votes is muffled quickly by the admins who hang around RfA. Protonk (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion in such a profound, articulate and cogent manner. I am genuinely touched that you devoted so much of your time and energy to answering my concern -- clearly there are better ways to spend the day than getting logic into my wee brain. Be well and keep up your fine work. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Berkeley oak grove controversy

Your edit summary is "change date per WP:DATE" but it is unclear where it states that a specific date should be changed to a less specific one. What exactly are you referring to? --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:DATE#Dates. the bullet point noting that ISO dating shouldn't be used in prose. Hope that helps! Protonk (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's an issue I've meant to get to, I suppose I might as well now. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for taking the time to write that great summary of the Colbert/MM controversy over at WP:VP. I think it really distills out the main arguments quite nicely and will help people focus on the important issues. Nice work. Yilloslime (t) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Marx & Mathematical economics

Hello--In Marxian_economics#Current_theorizing_in_Marxian_economics, there's a bit, "The Marxian value theory is fundamental to much of mathematical economics, econometrics and macroeconomic models such as those pioneered by Leontief and now commonly used for forecasting purposes." I'm skeptical of this, and hoping that your recent research into mathematical economics might have turned something up. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well. first off the sentence itself isn't accurate. Nothing of what Marx wrote (or Ricardo, or Smith, etc) is really all that fundamental to the practice of economics as a technical discipline. Fundamental stuff, like talking about division of labor (Smith), rents gained for landowners (Ricardo) can be traced back to those guys. But a lot of Marxian economists made a point (much like most schools) of tieing new ideas back to marx. You can see this with English economists after Marshall.

Here's the take on Leontief. He developed a model of production in an economy that used specific elements in a matrix to describe different production methods. He envisioned a matrix of "technical coefficients"--actually, Input-output model does a pretty good job of explaining it (even though the article isn't very good). In the 1940's this was pretty impressive stuff. the basic idea was that once the matrix was constructed, reasonably accurate predictions could be made about how a change in one sector of the economy might impact another sector (as everyone competes for inputs and consumes outputs) I can't speak to how much input-output analysis impacts current day econometrics. The basic idea (systems of equations designed to accept data under certain conditions in order to test functional forms) seems like it would benefit from something like Leontief. He's certainly an important figure in 20th century economics.

As for how much of a Marxian he was...I don't know. the books I've got don't cover him too much and they don't cover his influences. My guess is that the sentence should be toned down, but maybe some biography of Leontief will pop up and we'll find out he was a big fan of Marx. Hope that helps! Protonk (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I lean towards completely killing that bit, but might seek out the semi-reference first. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Update. Looks like I didn't search on the internet. Silly me. New school bio suggests that there might be some grist for the mill here. Sorry. All I went on was the three books on history of math. econ. I have checked out. :( Protonk (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, you aren't required to have definitive answers for any random question someone drops you! Thanks for the link. It's yet another reminder of the huge gaps in my knowledge. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Lawyers

I'm not really sure who you are either. But to answer your statement, you are right, I have not retained a lawyer to take action against anyone and I in no way made that threat. Not sure how you read that into my remarks. My brother IS a lawyer and he did advise me however that there is no copyright infringement here. There is no disputing that I own the copyright to any photos that I take. --Flans44 05:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lt. Powers spelled it out pretty well. You own the photos, all right, but you don't own the rights to distribute images of Paramount property, regardless of how you got them. As for your "lawyer", let's just say I have a lot of trouble believing that. Protonk (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to be a jerk about this? What part are you having a hard time believing? You say that I don't own the right to distribute images of Paramount property. The property is mine. It is an item that I own. --Flans44 17:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)--Flans44 16:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flans44 (talk • contribs)

I'm having a hard time believing that you asked a lawyer about this and that you are accurately relaying his or her answer. That's all. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that is unfortunate as most people in the community give each other the benefit of the doubt. I don't know why you put the word lawyer in quotes other than to be a jerk about it. I don't appreciate being called a liar. If I say I contacted a lawyer about it then I did. And yes, I am accurately relaying his answer. --Flans44 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flans44 (talk • contribs)

Look dude, I honestly, really, really don't care. Don't turn this into something it's not. there is no way for me to prove that you didn't call a lawyer and there is no way for you to prove you did call a lawyer. As such, it doesn't matter what is said about calling lawyers. Just like if you told me you are a lawyer, it doesn't add any authority to your posts here. If I said I was a lawyer, it wouldn't add any authority to my posts about copyright law. I just noticed someone who got a message about their image being deleted (a common occurrence) who happened to respond by announcing that they had a lawyer and that their lawyer (conveniently) affirmed their view about the image copyright status. When something like that happens, it sets off my bullshit meter. Since you later said that you hadn't retained a lawyer but that your brother is a lawyer and you called him, I'm less inclined to believe the original story. But like I said, it doesn't matter. No one is better off for your having told us that you have a lawyer, least of all you. My advice is for you to listen to LT. Powers and tag these images as they are, derivative works that may be displayed under fair use exemptions. Protonk (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how I am turning this into something that it is not. Your bullshit meter must be broken as I never once changed my story. I never once said that I had retained a lawyer. I said that I got off the phone with one about the topic. I really don't care that you believe me or your bullshit meter. Look dude, I honestly, really, really have better things to do in life than be cyber-bullied by somebody who has nothing better to do than be a Wikipedia policeman with their bullshit meter. I am a casual visitor here and try to make a contribution now and then. But this just isn't worth it. You really ought to move out of your parent's basement and get on with life as well. --Flans44 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flans44 (talk • contribs)

No one is cyber bullying you. I don't recall twisting your arm and making you insult me on my talk page. I'll repeat myself. NO ONE CARES IF YOU TELL US YOU CALLED A LAWYER. If you feel it is necessary to attack me personally on my talk page, you'll be blocked from editing. My advice to you stands. Just edit like the rest of us and try and seek out some answer from the community as to the copyright status of your images. You are welcome to continue posting on my talk page as long as you can refrain from insulting me. thanks. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy Quest

Regarding the comicbook section in this article I am totally fine to have it removed from the article if it is not suitable, but in your previous deletion of the section you wrote "come back when the comics get some coverage in third party sources", so as you can see I added in five (5) references to coverage of the comic in third-party sources, including an interview with the writer of the comic, and fairly noteable sources in the comicbook world , e.g. Comic Book Resources, io9.com, HeroSpy and ComicVine. So I'm unclear as to was you reverted the article again. I'm sure this is a misunderstanding on my behalf, and I'm missing the point, but in your current revision, when you say "It isn't sourced and it isn't germane", can you break that up and let me know what part isn't sourced, an then afterwards why is isn't relevant? many thanks Damiantgordon (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy Quest (comics). Hope that helps things. Sorry about reverting the second edit. It looked a lot like the first one. That was my fault. The fact remains that the article is about the film Galaxy Quest and that other works would merit only a short mention. Protonk (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

SPAM?

I had actually using Firefox to edit, and not inserted spam exterial link. I only talk truth that Firefox is great, no other spam.RushdimIDlike (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine. There are plenty of userboxes to note that in your user page. It isn't appropriate for articles. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Creating page

Whu you don,t let anyone to create many pages withon seconds? it's no disadventage, if has imappitcite contents, it still may be delete. RushdimIDlike (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Because deletion requires effort and it is much easier if you just slow down and ensure that everything added to Wikipedia is within our content guidelines. Protonk (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Holly Ann Collins

No problem - I copied the original text because I thought it might go to AfD at some point and I wanted to look to see if a decent article could be made out of it. I couldn't do a lot with the sources, though - the existing stub is the best we can do and to be honest if it went to AfD I'd probably vote delete - it's not really much more than a minor news story. Black Kite 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the userpage rv. Much appreciated. Libs 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: USS Iowa (BB-61) GAC

"...the article reads like a deployment timeline of the Iowa rather than an encyclopedia article on the subject."

It's suppose to (to a degree), the article is part of a series, with most of the armament and weaponry detalis and the conception, design, and construction material covered at length in articles deal near exclusively with the material. Thats not to sayt the the article should simply recite the deployment histyr, as you surmised, there is more to Iowa then jsut note the abttleship was at this place doing this job at this time in history, but the vast majority of the article will be devoted to that line of thought to conform with the mandates of summary style and to keep with the style laid down in the other five articles which are at the moment featured.

Also, on the issue of the sources, I was unable to turn up any book sources on my end that dealt with anything other than the 1989 turret explosion. I did try, but as an army town most of what I found here was dedicated to covering army history, not navy history. Much as I wish it were not the case, this did effect the sources I used to rebuild the article. At any rate, you have done an outstanding job of providing suggestions for improvement, and for that I am grateful. I will work on adressing your concerns over the next few days, though I caution that as a result of the Labor weekend I will be unable to get into the library to tighten up the magaizine sources until Tuesday at the earliest. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		For providing an outstanding assessment for the article USS Iowa (BB-61) I herby award you the WikiChevrons. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind too much if I start crossing out issue that we both agree have been adressed? The GAC page is getting a little crowded, which is making it harder for me to find and address the issues you've brought up there; crossing out dealt with things would make it easier for me to see what still needs done. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do one better. I'll strike the done ones and leave an "unresolved" tag on the rest. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Help

Good day, Protonk! I need a small help. Could you have a look on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rockdetector please? It would help me a lot! Have a nice day...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer on the noticeboard!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

40K project

I'm no longer involved in the 40K articles. I've removed them all from my Watchlist, and I have (or at least I thought I had) removed my name from the participants list. Why? Because, as shown by the recent actions of Allemantdro (or whatever his name is),

• 1) The articles on 40K, in their current form, isn't wanted on Wikipedia, and so are deleted, regardless of the amount of work put into them, and
• 2) from above, the double standards involved within the entire Wikipedia project [WP:IDONTLIKEIT] where some "fluff" articles are "protectedted" by certain users, whereas others (the 40K ones in this case, but not the only ones) can be deleted on a whim.

So, rather than get pissed about it, I just ignore them - sorry, but there it is.

On a non-related note though, there's a user called User:The Immortal Lord 00 listed on the projects page - keep an eye out (if he's active), as it's probably another sockpuppet (see User:The Immortal Lord). Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 19:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to hear that. You had removed your name by striking it through. I just wasn't paying attention when I parsed the list for a text file of members. I wish you would take another look at the project, but I hope you'll have fun editing either way. Thanks for responding. Protonk (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith

Portrait of Adam Smith by John Kay, 1790.

Hi; hope I didn't take the wind out of your sails at WP:FPC. Here's an alternate portrait I located; you're welcome to replace it in your nomination if you like. Good choice of subject! For reference, the unrestored version is at Image:AdamSmith1790.jpg. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 08:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! I was, in fact, unaware. I have reuploaded it to Wikipedia as a fair use image and place a CSD tag on it at commons. How did you find Kay's other portrait? I've got a scanned copy of his book and the only page that is missing contains the second portrait (the first is pretty unimpressive, Smith standing between two other men. Protonk (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The online files from the photographs and prints division of the Library of Congress. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 15:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you like to renominate the restored etching? It has enough resolution and encyclopedic value that it might pass. Durova^Charge! 01:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll give it a shot. I wish I could tell from the source documentation which version it was and who the author was. There just isn't enough data and most of the discussion of the etchings are made by biographers (rather than archivists or art historians) who assumed that the reader would have easy access to a recent copy of Wealth of Nation. Thanks for your help, by the way. Protonk (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
        • For authorship I'd go with John Kay the engraver. You might ask Shoemaker's Holiday; he does a lot of engraving FPs. Best, Durova^Charge! 03:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Hmm. I think we may have been speaking at cross purposes. I assumed you meant the changed Adam Smith image. I figured if the John Kay engraving was to be nominated you should do so (as you found it). Whoops. Note the egg on my face. For some reason I turn off the critical thinking portion of my brain when it comes to images. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, just trying to be nice actually. I know how frustrating it can be for a well-meaning editor to run afoul of copyright with the very best of intentions based upon obscure clauses like this, and I've seen FPC regulars get brusque with newcomers. Normally I'd offer to conominate under similar circumstances, but I didn't want to give the appearance of stealing your thunder. Just call it an act of goodwill, with the hope you'll become a regular and return the good deed to another newcomer someday. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 05:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I never doubted for a minute that you were trying to be nice. You've been very helpful throughout this whole process. :) Protonk (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Category:Space Odyssey spacecraft

Most of the entities in Category:Space Odyssey spacecraft have been merged into List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series during an AfD discussion. This leaves one (two if the list is counted) member in the category. I would nominate if for discussion over at WP:CFD but I would rather leave you the option to nominate it for a speedy deletion as the author. Thanks for your help. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to reply to you regarding Category:Space Odyssey spacecraft. Sorry! I requested a speedy deletion on 30 August. Matthew (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

LessHaired thanYou

Yes, you are correct both times. It is odd, and nobody has previously mentioned it...! ;~) The header is how it is supposed to articulate, and the reasons are obvious at my Userpage (view at your own risk). Ummm... thanks for caring and happy editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice?

Hello--You seem level-headed, helpful, and pretty aware of what's happening in economics articles. I did a {{helpme}}, but would also appreciate it if you have any insight on this. I'll also quite understand if you'd rather not comment. Thanks either way. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

he was a she

hey, thanks for your comment in the coerr drv. i still don't think the article should be there... anyway, i just wanted to say that you should be more careful with your third-person pronouns, you might offend someone ;) xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about that! I usually try to steer clear of gendered language, but it slips through. I've got a lot of practice just writing the male pronoun by default. Sorry I didn't say something earlier, I was trying to figure out what coerr stood for. I finally just gave up and tracked back through your contributions until I found a DRV. :) Thanks for letting me know. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep

Thank you for pointing me to WP:Speedy keep, will most certainly take that into account in the future when closing AFDs. I could have sworn I saw somewhere a clause that AFDs could be closed early when the Keep consensus is unanimous save for the nominator, and the article's subject has clearly been the topic of significant discussion in numerous WP:RS/WP:V independent secondary sources - but there does not appear to be such a clause at WP:Speedy keep, so no worries. Cheers and thank you, Cirt (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One point of clarification, I have seen people close AFDs against the guideline of WP:Speedy, with an edit summary of: "Speedy keep, per WP:SNOW", or something to that effect. Is that inappropriate? How does WP:SNOW affect WP:Speedy keep? Cirt (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, really. I was just going to follow up with a comment to that effect. SNOW is an essay that describes situations in which the outcome of a debate is plainly obvious to anyone who would observe it. So obvious that the debate itself would be superfluous. There isn't a hard and fast rule about when to apply WP:SNOW. In the specific case there I would say that it might not have been the best application. The only reason I say that was at the beginning of the nomination it really was unclear whether or not the book met WP:NB. As debate continued and gated sources were found, it became apparent that it would meet WP:NB. That changing of the facts meant that a keep was likely inevitable but a snowball close usually means that it would have been inevitable from the beginning of the debate. This, of course, is pretty fine hair splitting. I basically feel that closing that debate as keep was perfectly ok, I just wanted to make sure you didn't close a closely related debate as keep and ruffle some feathers. Does that help? Protonk (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is basically exactly what I thought. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Transformer changes

I'd didn't realize I was limited to company links Sorry this was an oversight. I could have reduced the links

Why did you reverse everything?

The White papers I added to transformer added value Introduction to Transformer Magnetics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond8255 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

skittles

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent reversion against vandalism on the skittles page! Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for handling the ANI post about GA reviews, I think you handled it great and managed to deescalate a situation that could have gotten ugly. i.e. I think you are awesome :-) delldot ∇. 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

JimmySky (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the help on my Joint Capability Areas page. I will start working in a sub-page like you suggested.

Adam Smith WP:GA

So it's been around a week (longer, I think), and I'm not sure how you feel about passing it (or whether I'm convinced it's yet ready for Good Article status). I know you had some concerns about passing the article now that you're more heavily involved, and we haven't fully addressed two sticking points you raised earlier. May I recommend requesting another Good Article reviewer's opinion, and letting them handle promotion or failure as they deem fit? But anything you want to do is fine, I just think we should move on this in the short term. Thanks for all your help. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think there are still issues left unresolved, could you please re-iterate them at the bottom of the Talk:Adam Smith/GA1 page? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I already did, but it was on the talk page. I moved that section to the GA review. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Pedestrian question

Yes my question on the noticeboard was "pedestrian." I am just slowly reading the newbie stuff some1 posted on talk page. All I really know how to do is sign my name...regards Johndoeemail (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions

I am new to Wikipedia and did not know where to put this article, Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions. I am asking people who are deleting contributions of others using WP:Coatrack, and people who are objecting, to come to an agreement on using Coatrack for Deletioins. I tried to summarize all of the discussions on the various Palin church related sites making one policy that everyone's remarks are consistent with. I am a mathematician and am trained in the philosophy of language. It seems that people are arguing and fighting because they are ambiguous using words in different ways, so clarifying the ambiguity will resolve the fights. You commented on the "tone"; can you help me fix it? You also said you did not agree with some things in the essay; can you say why so that I can incorporate your reasoning? Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

RFA-nom offer

I can't honestly say that I that familiar with you but you seem to be ready, if you don't feel that you are or just don't want my name on your nom-statement that's fine though. So, what do you think? - Icewedge (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I'm very flattered. I'm not too concerned with who is on my nom statement, but I'll offer you a deal. If you wait until the 15th of Octbober (about my 6 month mark) and you still want to nominate me, I'll accept it. But let's give it another month or so. Protonk (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. If you ever want a RFA-nom just drop me a line. See you around, good luck whenever you do go :) - Icewedge (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List of controversial video games

Hello ProtonK, I was wondering if you would consider undoing this redirect since a) I still believe it can function very well as a separate entity, b) the target article is still a complete wreck and c) the table has been removed from the controversy article. I don't think it has been given a chance to grow into its boots. Someoneanother 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't object if you undo it. The target article is a wreck but I only made the redirect after I noted that someone already merged the content, so I figured we didn't need two competing lists which were not necessarily updated at the same time. I have no strong feelings about the 'list' article as a whole. If you want to undo it and start adding elements from the "controversy" section, I'll be happy to help. Protonk (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that it was a merge/redirect and that somebody else had merged the content, so rather than steaming in and undoing it as though it was anything other than a perfectly appropriate action I wanted to discuss it first. This GameSpot article points to some of the missing games, can't believe I somehow forgot Thrill Kill, someone recently edited the controversy article to do with Rule of Rose, which at the time was in UK newspapers and caused a fuss (it blew itself out overnight, but it's a good example). I went looking for the list because yesterday I stumbled upon a flash-game depicting a set of anthropomorphic uh, female parts being the main enemy, it's a shit-storm waiting to happen. I'm keeping my eye out for sources with the aim of writing an appropriate article should the dung hit the fan, if it needs handling then better it done sensibly. The GameSpot article points at other things like the flight sim which needed changing because of 9/11, which may or may not have caused controversy at the time, there will be other examples around. Tell you what: I'll gather sources first and only undo the redirect when I'm actually ready to update the list with several new items, at which point I'll drop you a note so you can see what you think, low on time ATM but will hopefully be able to within a few days. I think the list would be a lot more convincing if it were more complete, ATM it's so small that it gives out the vibe that GTA and Mortal Kombat are 'it'. Cheers. Someoneanother 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, take a look at the AfD for the list. It wasn't going to be deleted but it did point out some clear editorial problems. The biggest one is selection. I tried to limit it to games where some source said "this caused a controversy" rather than games where sources just said "this is lewd/violent/etc". I think that's a valid inclusion criteria (mostly because it mirrors the inclusion criteria of an already published list), but it is hard to maintain, because there are so many obviously controversial games where some source didn't state the obvious. If you start working on it again I'll be happy to help. We can add some pictures (as FU rules dictate, I guess) and some quotes or summaries and maybe turn it into something good. At the very least it will be cleaner than the main article. Protonk (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally take your point re: lewd =/= controversial, that Sim Copter example is most likely out of place, each entry that's already there will need to be checked and I'll do so when it's back up. There are several games which have caused religious outcry, some low-fi games like Super Columbine Massacre RPG and various other odds and sods to sift through too. Your help would be appreciated when I've done the research, but you're under no obligation. It'd be good to set a clear lead down which explains the criteria, it's also good to have someone to discuss borderline cases with. I'll let you know when I've brought the article back. Someoneanother 20:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. That's an easy subject for me to work in, relatively. Protonk (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's still early days, but what do you think of the expanded reasons for them being controversial? SimCopter looked extremely ropey at first, but after adding all the story it seemed a lot stronger, 'nudity' didn't cover it. There's still more to add from my workspace, and several other leads have come up. Someoneanother 13:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to 'The Family That Slays' etc.

There already is a discussion on the talk page about the percieved original research. At this point, I think an outside editor should be called in. Lots42 (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from knowing AMiB, I have no other history with that article. What is being inserted is trivia and original research. If there is commentary from the makers (on their blog or the DVD commentary tracks or in interviews), then let's source it and add it. If there is coverage from some reliable source not the makers, then lets add that. Otherwise we can't really include it. You can go to Wikipedia:Third opinion if you want, but it is going to be a waste of your time. They will tell you what I told you. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No skin off my nose, I just wanted the facts known. Nobody benefits from an edit war. Lots42 (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:It is not that funny

Wikipedia:It is not that funny, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:It is not that funny and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:It is not that funny during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP tag

Thanks. Suffice it to say that it started from a persistent sock problem and was carried on by others. LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR and OR

." I'm going to keep removing OR until there is a consensus on the talk " You've violated 3RR with that edit. But since we're opponents on this sort of article i'm going to us my discretion and not even formally report it, or even give a formal warning, just alert you that what you said in the edit summary and I quoted is the very definition of unacceptable edit warring, There are only 3 cases where that sort of practice is acceptable: BLP, downright vandalism, and copyvio. Not OR. DGG (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up, but look closer at the history on that page. There are only three "reverts" of content. I would also suggest a mosey on over to the talk page to see the expected tenor of discussion about insertion of original research. But thank you for the nudge. Protonk (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

if you're going to be running for admin, as you suggest above, you need to be especially careful. As you say, a friendly nudge. DGG (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks again. I had the number 4 in the back of my head, but that's not really the "right" answer. the right answer is somewhere closer to one, with some discussion. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MIssing Section of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Hi Protonk,

I have a query about a missing record in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that I am hoping you can help me with.

A little while ago I participated in a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about using a personal website as a source in the case of an audio clip of David Michael Jacobs speaking about his belief that he has been in communication with alien-human hybrids on AOL Instant messenger. You gave your opinion that if the audio clip is hosted on a personal website it is not a reliable source, but that if it were hosted by CNN, or the New York Times etc, it would be hard to exclude it as a source.

I have just tried to find that section of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard again, and it seems to have disappeared. I have looked in the archived sections of that noticeboard but I cannot see it there either. Are you able to let me know what has happened to it?

The matter was originally discussed on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, and that section of the discussion is still there at [[5]]. You can see that there are links from the bottom of that section to the section of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that I am talking about. However, when you click on them now they do not take you to the section anymore, but just to the top of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard page, that does not have that section on it.

Does this mean that someone has deleted that whole section of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that was about this issue? If so, is there a way to find it and restore it? I would like to have a record of the discussion, and of your opinion as posted by you. If the audio clip is hosted by a reliable source as you outlined in your opinion, I want to revisit the issue, and I would like to have a record of your opinion to refer to.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know how to find it again. I am new to Wikipedia, and not very familiar with how it works. Thanks very much.

Angie186 (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Protonk,

I managed to find it, so it is sorted.

Thanks.

Angie186 (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Gang of 20

The gallery is similar to the one for Gang of 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisace101 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case then the gallery there needs to be removed. those images don't add anything to the article that isn't already shown by the list of names. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re WP:AN#Right to vanish and not vanished

Hi, Protonk. Trust me, if I were not morally certain that ER = LGRdC, I would never have gone out on a limb by posting to that thread at all. I just hesitate to openly divulge any of the clear giveaways that may be needed to identify his next incarnation. If he had confined himself to making stupid !votes in AfDs, I might have looked the other way, but making faux-inept edits in article space and asking faux-naive questions in discussions is going too far, as it wastes other users' time. Deor (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, but if it is him it will be crystal clear to lots of people in a few weeks time. either way there is no harm in closing that thread and waiting a while. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I refactored my comment.Kww (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. As you can see from the sentences above, I have no future as a checkuser. :) Protonk (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nerf (computer gaming) - THANKS! :)

Ahh, excellent work! I very much appreciate your rescue efforts. :) sinneed (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Happy to help. Thanks for the praise. I was just going to drop that list of refs and go, but I figured a rewrite wouldn't be too hard. Protonk (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to article improvement. Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Protonk (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Miscellany

I'm not sure that you care who Robert is. He's something of a fan of various sorts of what I call “quasi/neo/crypto-Ricardian economics”. I'm not sure whether he likes all of the schools of thought in that cluster, and I don't know that he coulld himself be placed in that cluster; but, nonetheless, he's a fan. We've been involved in a few disputes:

• over whether the term “neoclassical economics” properly includes the Austrian School;
  • over whether my claim that it does not involves “original research”;
• over whether Marx's failure to understand the idea of price being determined by an equilibration fo schedules of supply and demand represented a failure to understand the classical economics of his day;
• over whether Henry Hazlitt is to be chided for thoughtlessly accepting the interest theory of Böhm-Bawerk, or in fact didnt accept that theory, thoughtlessly or otherwise.

Robert hasn't fared well in any of these disputes, and you're simply seeing an attempt at revenge on the project page.

The lede to “Marginal utility” emerged from a lengthy dispute. I had earlier written a lede that was fully general and concise — and as a result rather abstract. Various neoclassical economists who encountered it could not see, in its abstraction, the conception with which they were familiar. On the one hand, I argued-out the particulars on the talk page; on the other hand, I let them have a shot at creating a lede that would be correct yet satisfy them. As to the latter, the result was a long lede, laden with history (and, at one point, a block quote from Jevons), which ended-up begging the question in favor of a quantified conception. As to the former, I eventually showed them on the talk page that there are some economically rational preferences to which even the weakest quantification cannot be fit, that one can still talk or write about diminishing marginal utility as movement to options of lower rank, and that this general' notion was that used by one of the three major schools of marginalism. When I trimmed back the lede, the neoclassical economists who were still participating found it too hard to see the familiar idea, but I kept working on it until they could comfortably say that it was accessible to the typical reader, while I could say that it was correct. —SlamDiego_←T 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

SlamDiego misrepresents the substance of my views in each bullet above. The last one, in particular, puzzled me. Some research shows that SlamDiego is referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economics_in_One_Lesson&oldid=223860232. Do you see me arguing with SlamDiego's ill-informed comment there? SlamDiego, in his bit about "quasi/neo/crypto-Ricardian economics", continues to demonstrate that Wittgenstein mistaken in arguing the impossibility of a private language.

Anyways, the entry on Marginal utility does push an Austrian POV. -- RLV 209.217.195.148 (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the subscriber figures for WoW

I'm posting this at each relevant talk page: See Talk:World of Warcraft#Edit war relating to subscriber numbers for further discussion, please. I'm staying out of this one! - Denimadept (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Protonk. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies (possibly twice)

I started a new subthread on your thread. I don't really understand this whole situation, so apologies in advance if my outside observations are unhelpful. Unhelpfulness is a theme with me lately (although, like I argued at ANI, I do think unhelpfulness should have some limits) as I've totally fallen through on my word to help with mathematical economics. My apologies for that as well. --JayHenry (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. As I saw it, the original request was from someone who wanted access to the ACC tool and as such, provided clear and honest information about themselves in order to get it. The first response to this request for help was from a total stranger who took it upon himself to declare that their motives were his business and that he should be able to comment on them. Thinking that, he left a curt and judgmental comment which served no purpose but to inform others that he had an opinion and that he decided to express it. To be quite blunt, I have a limited tolerance for bullshit like that, especially with regard to newbies. So I ignored all rules and removed it. What Kurt says on his userpage or on slashdot, or WR, or wherever is off less importance to me. What he (or anyone) says to well meaning new users is much more important, regardless of severity. Protonk (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't disagree with the removal. I'm mostly surprised the community puts up with these contributions since, as far as I can tell, they consist of nothing but provocation and invective (and, I'd add demagogy, accept I'm not sure the word fits when nobody listens). And I'm quite the fan of intelligent provocation and informed contrarianism, and so what concerns me most is that I see no evidence of that. --JayHenry (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find that we are rightly afraid of the possibility of groupthink. We are very worried that we will begin suppressing people for expressing unpleasant opinions so we tiptoe around editors who are abrasive but either speak about admins (Giano) or carry opinions around at variance with the norm (Kurt). That part I can understand. What frustrates me are the times when issues of user conduct are brought up and observers unfailing conflate those conduct issues with an underlying content dispute. If I (for example), get into a shouting match with a rank inclusionist, odds are that a certain set of editors will find my conduct acceptable (people on my side of the deletion spectrum) and find my opponent's conduct unacceptable (and vice versa). Unless I do something really unpleasant, things will usually fall down the line this way. It's not a wikipedia specific problem. People cluster into self protective groupings all the time. But even beyond that, there are people outside the groups who look at an issue of conduct during a content dispute and say "meh, content dispute" and move along. I don't know the answers to these troubles, but they crop up most everywhere. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying. So I should point out, however, that this is part of why I stepped in here. This is not about a content dispute for me or about any opinions or about his RFA stance. In general I agree with him about inclusionism (don't hate me :) and his RFA thing is of no particular interest to me one way or the other. (I think the only time I've even commented on it was, a long time ago, when I noted that his opposition had begun to increase the level of support at RFAs in which he expresses it. That's just free speech in action, and I'm all for that.) It's good to be wary of such things like groupthink, but the community seems to have created a problematic loophole that can be manipulated by people who want to be permanent gadflies and have no interest in the actual encyclopedia. Express a bizarre opinion in one venue, do what is conventionally "trolling" otherwise, and people will defend the "trolling" because of the bizarre opinion. Ehhh... okay, I recognize this is mostly from well-intentioned people, but at some point let's build an encyclopedia instead. --JayHenry (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand that loophole very, very, very well. Anyway. on to happier things. I fixed up a userspace draft of Mathematical econ and then brought it back to mainspace. I demurred to add too much about the actual current applications (As I had originally intended on the talk page) because the length would have been pretty bad (probably 80k of just text characters when it was all said and done). there are some commented out sections on the article and some ideas on what to add on the talk page, but I would be happy for even a copyedit on the material added (rather than a hand with the heroic task of surveying the field. Protonk (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A copy edit I can definitely oblige! I've been chipping away at the Panic of 1907 myself and almost have something decent there. --JayHenry (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. 1

Thanks for taking a look, i've left a note on review page, Tom B (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion update

Protonk,

I don't feel the proposed deletion of Samuel Kinkead is a negative experience at all. I believe it is a learning opportunity. Nevertheless, your kind answer is appreciated, and I will mull over your suggestions to learn what I may.

````George J. Dorner, 20 September 2008, 0107 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjdorner (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

bloody sunday

you're right there aren't many refs, when i searched [6] though hopefully you can use this picture: [7]. there doesn't seem to be copyright and communists should be willing to share! Tom B (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

no worries, thanks Tom B (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So...

I disagree with a lot of what's happened in that thread and I think you've glossed over a fair bit of crap from those that happen to agree with you.

But, at the same time, what you are saying is 110% correct and we need more people like you.

So... why aren't you an admin yet? Giggy (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, I plan to ask monthly!

• You're in luck. I already told icewedge above that if he still think's I'm awesome on the 15th of October (~6 month point), I'll accept a nomination. If you feel the same way, I'll accept a nom then. But make sure you ask your questions about my suitability now. You don't want to be too surprised by facts that crop up. :) Protonk (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I can't give you the Raul's Brick O' Common Sense, so this is the next best thing. I don't know how to put it better than you did! - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Which of us is suppose to close Martin Luther King, Jr.? What are your current thoughts. I am pretty neutral and defer to you if you have a strong preference either way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• If you are willing to defer I can wait a week or so and if nothing gets big gets done I will delist it. But I have no strong preference either. If you feel it is "close enough" to pass it, I can agree with that. It is certainly closer to a GA than a B-class. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE RETURN MY ARTICLE OF THE GRACIE DIET

I DONT KNOW WHY YOU DELETED IT! OR WHY YOU HAD TO TAKE THIS AGGRESSIVE BIASED APPROACH AND NOT EVEN LET ME EXPRESS MY SIDE OF WHY THE ARTICLE SHOULD STAY! THERE IS NOTHING I HATE MORE THAN AGGRESSIVE PEOPLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatirnitzany (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re weird diff

Apparently, my problem is also happening to others; there is a question at the Village Pump. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Copying information with permission

Hello, you recently said that my issue posted on the reliable sources noticeboard was not a reliable sources issue. I was hoping you could please direct me to the correct noticeboard. Thanks.Tkma (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Template Link Template

Thank you for changing my mistake. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I value your input highly

...which is why I'm a little dejected to see you in the "no" column at Flagged Revisions. Please see the argument I'm about to add to discussion of (e) there. (P.S. not watchlisting user pages until the Oct 20 0.7 deadline.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Great Wall: Six Presidents and China, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jordan ^Contribs 12:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

speaking of fail

This jogged my memory about the worst regression analysis I've ever seen in my life: [8]. Most children, intuitively, understand linear regression better than that. I'm not terribly political—the set of issues that are a priority to myself and a priority to most swing voters is the null set; I think the most important thing is to keep bozos as far away from having any influence as possible. Unfortunately, there are a very great number of bozos. --JayHenry (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• There seems to be a strong self selection bias for bozos. That graph is awesome, BTW. Going to use it in an intro to stats class. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• And for a laugh, if Matt had uploaded that graph to Commons rather than Flickr, it would have been speedily deleted by now for a false copyright statement. :) Protonk (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Destination One

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destination One. --Eastmain (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Account name redirection

Many thanks for the tip on redirection. However, does it delete my old text? Or does it move it over to the receiving account? George J. Dorner ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 08:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. Happy editing! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting...

...hasn't started yet! I was looking for more eyes as to the structure of the vote, not actual voting! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• ARGH!!!! Reading failure. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Asking nicely

Protonk, I don't use words lightly. Here is the excerpt from the Talk:Law page, where I drew the line...

You just reverted a passage which again has spelling and grammar mistakes. You are now officially a troll, and I wish you would go away. Wikidea 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So I will continue to call him a troll because he is a disruptive, disingenuous pest. You can see a whole series of exchanges on these two, and the competition law page where I was asking him nicely to stop being vexatious. You reach a line. So far as I can see, this is the only way to deal with it, and all trolls like him. I mean, where else would you draw the line? Surely people who contribute nothing and only frustrate the work of others should be dealt with sharply. That is what I am doing. In a classroom or a workplace or some kind of public meeting he would have been shown the door already. Wikidea 23:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm suggesting you not use them at all. It benefits no one to throw around injectives like that. Period. We can say he is disruptive, or we can otherwise characterize his actions but the labeling road ends in drama. It really does. Besides, what he is doing isn't really trolling, per se. If you think he is messing up articles and frustrating others than say so. but it honestly serves no function to call him a troll. Or anything else, like a pest. Even if it did serve a function, there is a human being on his end of the internet connection. I'm not saying that you shouldn't undo his edits, clean up his messes, or report him to noticeboards if it becomes a problem. But please don't call him a troll or a pest. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point of view, but it's precisely because there's another human being at the end of the internet connection that I'm telling him he's a troll, pest, etc. In real life, when someone won't shut up, talks out of turn, says the same stupid stuff over and over, you draw a line. I haven't ever reported someone before though: maybe I should've before. I tried tags etc, and he's just more subtle with his vandalism now: waiting a while before giving it another go, for instance. If he was contributing something useful, it'd be altogether different, but he hasn't. Anyway, it's a credit to you that you're trying to be a peacemaker, but I'm not convinced that rudeness is ineffective! I think it benefits everyone else to be suspicious of this idiot, because he's doing the same thing across a number of pages. Wikidea 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Space marine chapter list

I wanted to know your opinions on what Chapters should be included in the Chapter list. Should we keep a section for 2nd founding chapters? We'd have to keep it to a minimum, but all I'm thinking is a short list of second foundings, with little or no description. I think we can get rid of Chapters after the third for sure, but perhaps we should have a section for the 21st? Let me know on the talk page. Tealwisp (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

40k sources

I'm going to go through my 3rd ed rulebook (the only 40K book I still own) and fill in some gameplay/history gaps.

If you need something from the later editions, particularly 4th, just ask me. Fifth is a little difficult at the moment, but I can get that soon. Tealwisp (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tulip mania a go go

Pro,

They finally put Tulip mania up on the schedule for tommorrow (almost today). With today's (yesterday's) vote on the bailout plan and -777 on the DJIA, it looks like it's gone up on probably the most interesting day possible!

I've read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches on how to monitor changes during the day. Will you join in on monitoring?

We'll see what happens. Frankly, I expect that there might be some problems with people calling today(y) a crash of unprecedented proportions, the sky is falling, and saying the article has an ostrich-like POV. Not to get too defensive, but I worked a lot on an article that became known as January 2008 stock market volatility trying to convince people that the world had not ended on Martin Luther King's birthday. (See the 1st day's edits, the article then was known as Black Monday (2008)).

Well, it could be interesting. Any help appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you ever watch Fast Money. I don't like the show, but sometimes it's on in the office. Last night one of them asks Jeff Macke what positions to take in a market like this and Macke says "cash and fetal". I saw it quoted a couple places today. But I don't even know how great cash is. I'm thinking maybe "canned foods and shotguns" are the way to go for now. Actually (and I could come to eat these words no doubt) from what I know of MBS I think there's a reasonable chance of something like this happening (knock on wood). That's no excuse for fiscal crazy. But I'm optimistic. --JayHenry (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When Chernomyrdin was fired at the start of 1998, the Russians said "buy salt and matches," but this was a country where actual banknotes where considered a risky investment. Here, I'm pretty confident as long as Warren Buffett is buying - but on his terms, the long-term investment should work out, and the short-term doesn't really matter. As far as the WSJ opinion piece, it violates the first rule of investment "Anybody who invests with a goal other than simply to make money, will acheive his goal - at least to the extent that he doesn't make money." The purpose of the bailout has been stated to be - buy the MBS at a price higher than the current "fire-sale prices" - they are not trying to make money, they are trying to give it to Wall Street. (I'll let Protonk have his talkpage back). Smallbones (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. When my father was in Russia they used to refuse to take the new twenties because they were radically different from the old ones. It took some doing to convince cab drivers etc. that money wasn't changed wholesale with a face-lift. Odd what entirely reversed expectations will do for you. Protonk (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to ask the question: can the markets stay irrational longer than the Treasury can stay solvent? Perhaps when I'm older and wiser I won't see it in those terms. I will say there are some organizations that seem to make money with more complicated goals. Interestingly, some would say The Nature Conservancy is such an organization. And I'm sure the good oracle would agree that the strength of a bank, depends as much on the current leader as the person who had been making decisions for the past ten years or so. And as a cabinet official you could never say you think you're going to make money. --JayHenry (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While we're speaking of "Masters of the Universe", I've been thinking for awhile that The Bonfire of the Vanities would be a fun article to whip into shape. Have either or you read it and have interest? I was just reading the other day that Wolfe's description of Sherman McCoy's office was based off hanging out on the bond trading desk of Salomon Brothers with John Meriwether and the rest of the future LTCM crew. --JayHenry (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read bonfire of the vanities, but I really ought to. I read Inventing Money and came away pretty unsatisfied. For a non-fictional account that was looking to breathe some life into the subject, it didn't really do it for me. It would be neat to see Wolfe weave it into fiction. My money on this whole banking crisis says we are in one of two different situations. Either 20% of the banks are partially insovlent and that is freezing up the commercial paper market or 80% of the banks are insolvent. If it is the former, we can afford to take the hit, however large, while congress gets their fingers in the pie (sigh). If it is the latter, that Paulson plan won't fix things anyways. Protonk (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, so can I treat you like a cur now? --JayHenry (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, yes. Until I think of a more gaudy admonition. :) Protonk (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I hated Bonfire of the Vanities--it definitely left me thinking that Wolfe should stick to non-fiction. The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby was glorious. I don't think you'd get much about actual finance practice from the book, either. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh trust me you're preaching to the choir about Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby :) And about Wolfe's non-fiction and writing in general :) But I think even if you find his style tedious in Bonfire, you have to give him credit for nailing the city. Al Sharpton before there was really Al Sharpton; Wall Street before there was Wall Street; Spitzer long before there was Spitzer; Hitchens before he was Hitchens... Just sayin'! --JayHenry (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Grrr. Hitchens. An insufferable lout sometimes and an amazingly clearheaded thinker other times. No one frustrates me more to read than him. To his enduring credit, he makes it difficult to tune out views that are on the opposite end of the spectrum from mine. But sometimes he's just so boneheadedly wrong. Sorry, that's my hitchens rant. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes! There's literally nobody who I find myself nodding along with--"truth to power", speak it!--sometimes, and banging my head against the table--shut the f&@%! up you idiot!--the other times as much as Hitchens. Although Peggy Noonan and P.J. O'Rourke are sometimes close. On balance though Noonan is mostly a partisan hack. Often as I disagree, I can't help but think the nation would be better served by more ferocious contrarians like Hitchens in the media. --JayHenry (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mechanism design

You might find this thread fascinating ... I do ... since it concerns mechanism design for a kind of "short FAC'. The long thread is at WP:FAC#Wikipedia:Excellent short articles, although hopefully we'll be condensing things and moving forward at WP:Featured short articles. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

That idea may not go anywhere, but G-Guy has an alternative at WT:GAN#G-Guy's idea. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify

Yes, I think that knowing creation of articles that violate any major policy or guideline is inappropriate, including WP:N, obviously. As I've attempted to clarify in the discussion, the reason Bulbasaur got singled out in that quote was not because it is fictional, but because it had already been redirected for violating WP:N, and it was resurrected by editors that knew that, and they edit-warred ([9][10][11][12] to prevent the redirect from taking effect. To this very day, it violates WP:N. Did my wording suck? Yep. If editors had edit-warred to preserve a violation of any other major guideline or policy, would we have treated them differently? Yep. Instead, after the redirect was protected, an admin edited a protected article to override the redirect.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I know. Maybe I should go back and see if that is clear. I just think that it is unfair for you to be pigeonholed as a partisan by an old diff. I know that Jay had good reason to bring it up (like it or lump it, it was valid), but I wish it weren't so early on. That's mostly why I made the comment: you've done much more work in the WP:N area since then and it is a shame that you are being made out to be the monster here. Protonk (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Encounters with the Archdruid

On 4 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Encounters with the Archdruid, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive editing by User:Vision_Thing

Hi Protonk, please leave a message here. Wikidea 11:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: speedy of hoaxes...

That's good to know--although when practice and policy differ, and nobody seems to mind, then I think we should amend the policy--off to the talkpage I go! Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 03:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I see it a lot at AfD. A really obvious hoax will sit for 1-2 days before some admin steps up to delete the article as a G3. Remember that "blatant misinformation" is already included in G3. I think that the deletion of...subtle misinformation :) is where the stretching occurs. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I actually went back and struck that part of my comment at the RfA. Rereading that "non-criteria" section, it makes it pretty clear...(Hey, at least I KNOW I have a lot to learn if I pass my RfA.)

Incidentally, not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but the formatting on your userpage looks a little strange. I checked it in both my browsers and in Firefox, the collapse-bars for the subsections under "Projects" and "Pages" spill over into your sidebar and obscure the stuff inside; on IE, the subsections don't start til all the way at the bottom, beneath the sidebar. (WinXP MediaCenter SP3, Firefox 3.0.3, IE 7.0.5, in case you're interested in all the technical stuff.) I don't know what browser you're using, but in my two, it's a little hard to read. Just thought I'd mention it in case you didn't know; if you did, sorry to be a nitpicking little tech-dork. :) Thanks! Gladys J Cortez 04:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Naw, that's some useful info. I had to remove some collapse bars from another area, so I might consider it on my userpage. I'm not sure where the userpage fits on the "useful to me" ---- "helpful for others" continuum, but if I can fix it in a way that works for IE browsers, I will. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it just got weirder--I opened your userpage AGAIN in a different tab in FF and it looks EXACTLY fine. Do you have e-mail enabled? I could send you screenshots--this is really, really strange. The "bad" version is missing the committed-identity line--but there's nothing about it to say that it's an old revision or anything. The "good" version has the identity line and everything lines up perfectly--it's almost as though there are 2 different versions of your userpage, yet the URL is identical. Hmm. Gladys J Cortez 04:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, shoot me screens. I just changed it. so that might better explain why it works now. :) Protonk (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized that was WHY it looked right. D'OH! I'm going to sleep now. I'm QUITE useless at the moment. Take care...Gladys J Cortez 04:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Desysop proposal

Your point is well taken. I was wondering-- can you think of any way the policy could be modified or altered so we could avoid the problem point out?

Among the supporters, the basic thinking is: arbcom is very very overloaded and the community that grants adminship ought to be able to remove it in genuine cases when the admin isn't working out.

But, you have a very strong point-- we wouldn't want the process to be abused based on content-disputes or other cases where admins are doing their job properly but merely become unpopular for being good admins.

Is there any way we could have our cake and eat it too? Let the community "weigh in" and end adminships that aren't working out-- but at the same time, not be succeptible to abuse of the sort you describe?

We have three safeguards built in already, in that the 'Crats close out the process, the result can be appealed to arbcom, the result can be appealed to the board. Could is there any other way that you could htink of that we could preven the process being hijacked and used for the wrong reasons?

--05:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Responded as best I can on the proposal talk page. Protonk (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

proposed template

Would you check out my proposed template at User:Smallbones/draft template. Any comments appreciated. BTW, the template MAY be useful today. Smallbones (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

United States Naval Gunfire Support debate

I added a section with two subsection in an effort to address your concern about the pro battleship bias. Beofre I cite these sections intensly, I want your opinion on whether this is what you are looking for or not, and if not, what you would like to see added. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for your help with Harvey

I'll be over to help with Mathematical economics after I finish the monthly WP:Update and post some messages on some style pages. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Doing it now; I am supposed to be the plantation overseer for 0.7 copyediting, but we've had few requests and few volunteers. Please list Warhammer at WT:1C. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your rewrite of my essay

I just discovered the MfD of my essay Wikipedia:When to use the generic stub tag and your subsequent rewrite of it. I'm afraid that your rewrite completely obliterated the original meaning of it, and the concerns about an "insulting subtext" from the MfD were really way off-base and were just a consequence of people going out of their way to find something offensive. As I'm really not sure it'd be a good idea for me to revert it myself, I hope you'll consider doing so. Thanks! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well...that the rewrite probably saved it from being deleted, so keep that in mind. If you feel that your original essay was better or expressed the point in a clearer fashion, then we can either talk about it here or you can rewrite it (that's fine with me, I don't have any designs on it). I guess I was unclear on the original idea, then. As I saw it, you noted that just tagging something with the {{stub}} tag was fine and that someone who cared about categorization would come along to fix it. If that was the original idea, I think it is expressed in the current essay. If it wasn't, then I have misread it. If you want the essay to be something like "only the stub sorters should use the specific stub tag, life is too short for the rest of us", then my suggestion would be that the essay might work better in userspace. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that it was saved from being deleted, that was simply because a bunch of people were reading way too much into bits of it, and I was not able to correct them: a situation I don't expect will arise again. The problem with doing it myself is that I agreed not to do anything at all in Project space, except for a few narrowly-defined exceptions, and essays I have written was not one of them (had I thought of it, I doubt anyone would have objected to excepting it as well, but I didn't think of it at the time, and I don't want to cause an uproar at the moment). The gist of my essay is that there's no need to bother learning about the hierarchy at all unless you're specifically interested in it; if you're not, just take advantage of the knowledge of others. It seems like that bit—which was really the climax of what I was getting at—was totally left out, replaced with a lot of prose that, in my view, is almost contradictory to my original point. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh. If you want I'll revert my changes and move it into your userspace. I'm disinclined to change it wholly back to the original version because I don't agree with the conclusion as a general thought. However if that isn't amenable to you I'll give some thought to reverting it and leaving it in project space. I feel kind of shitty here. I don't think that the essay in project space should say what you want it to say, but it isn't fair for me to sit on that because you can't edit it. So I don't know. I'd be happiest with reverting my changes and moving it into your userspace, but let me look at the wording and see if I can change it to some compromise outcome. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000

I have started reviewing your article, Warhammer 40,000, and have made some comments at Talk:Warhammer 40,000/GA1, but I am having difficulty following the article. This has only happened to me once before, and in that case the problem was easily resolved by the editor making a few changes to his article. So, I am not saying this is a bad or poorly written article. Quite the contrary. However, I do think the article needs to be more accessible to the general reader. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gadsden Purchase GA Review

Hi Protonk, thanks for your GA review of this article. The points made in your review were comprehensive and helpful, and I improved the article as per your recommendations. I believe that I addressed most, if not all, of your suggestions, and would appreciate further feedback, and your judgment on whether the article is at an acceptable GA state. Thanks again. GlassCobra 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I responded on the GA review page. Thanks for jumping on this. I noticed that you were going to be out of town for a bit so I left it on hold. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The essay that wouldn't die has been moved

See User:Dank55/Essays#Privacy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Now completely rewritten (thanks to my level-headed partner). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mega Man 2

Are you actively watching the article? I've made some changes based on your review and I'd like to know if those changes are satisfactory, if there are additional problems, and such. I don't want to strike out comments you've made in case I misunderstood you idea or something. Jay32183 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• You are more than welcome to strike comments (or reply below each one) as you feel they are completed or if you have a question. I generally wait for people to say something on the review page, but I look at article changes as well. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the GA nomination, and double thanks for passing it after most of the changes were made. Lumaga (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello Protonk. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Hey there, thanks for doing the GA review for EG poisoning, I'll get onto implementing the changes and let you know when it's done, Thanks again. Mr Bungle | talk 04:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, the comments made in your review were really helpful, I've still got a little bit to tidy up but it's looking a much better now I've incorporated (most of) your suggestions. Cheers. Mr Bungle | talk 06:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA

I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I really appreciated seeing you in the support column (and no, that line is not in all of my thank you's, you can check :) ) I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you! Protonk (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to repeat this here, because I'm being sincere ... I liked your answer to my Q's. I do, however, have concerns about admin'ing someone with 6 months of experience. The quality of your edits, the non-reliance on tools, and the gradual improvements make me believe that given a few months of similar editing (and I do mean a few) I would wholeheartedly support you. BMW(drive) 14:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's ok. :) Thank you for the honesty. I fully understand the notion of setting some arbitrary time limit for adminship (which is why I rebuffed nominations before my 6 month mark). Understanding of how this place works comes at different rates for different people, but a good, broad view of it is unlikely to rush to anyone inside of, say, 3 months. If, on the other hand, they haven't got a good grip on the place outside of 24 months, they aren't likely to get one. Anywhere from 3-24 months (IMO) is a good place to just set a line that says "you probably haven't seen enough around here to be trusted with making these sorts of decisions". I can say with 100% certainly that I thought I had the whole place figured out ~2 months ago where in reality I didn't know the half of it. Now I'm making an attempt to "know what I don't know". Thank you for the feedback. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

GA articles

Protonk,

I know this must be a difficult period and I commend you for keeping your cool. I'm rooting in your corner. I see from the voting that many editors know you and respect you for your work and wonderful attitude, as I do.

The statement that you did not deserve full credit for your GA on Warhammer 40,000 is totally unwarranted. Many editors nominate articles for GA who have done almost nothing except list it on GAN. You contributed greatly to the article, not only in number of edits [13], but in substantially rearranging and greatly improving the article, and being receptive and working hard and using great common sense during the GA process.

If anyone looked at the diffs about your "mass deletions", they would find that User talk:IWarriors [14] has a block warning on his page from October 10 after less than 10 total edits on Wikipedia. Further, I read Talk:Warhammer 40,000 and the discussions regarding the problems with the article, the fancruft, the lack of sourcing, apparent copyright violations and threats of the game maker to sue that made Warhammer 40,000 and other articles on the topic ripe for ADF unless it was cleaned up and material removed.

Cahf made a total of four edits to John Emilius Fauquier [15] in April of 2008, and they were not "initial" contributions. So the charge that he deserves any credit for the article's GA is obviously ridiculous also.

I will add this information to your nomination if you would like me to. I just worry that the Oppose section gains attention by adding to it. However, I am more than willing. Your call.

Congratulations in advance! You have much community support. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• thanks so much for this, it means a lot. When I said that I shared credit with Dank55, Chris Cunningham and David Underdown‎, I meant it. I put a lot of work into those articles and I am proud of that, but they wouldn't be good articles if it weren't for those folks. As for the 40,000 article. I've had discussions before about pruning 40K material. Take a look at this revision of the Horus Heresy article. Now read some of the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Warhammer_40,000/Archive_7#Warhammer_ding-dong sturm and drang over trimming that down significantly. I don't think it helps to add this material to the 'oppose' section. I believe in truth in advertising for those claims but I'm not too worried. If people come by and say "oppose because he takes credit for blah", then we can talk about setting things straight explicitly. Also, WRT to the "mass deletion"--I had a chuckle. I literally spent 5-15 hours going through newspaper databases looking for those sources on 40K. So don't worry about it. I'm not upset by it. Thanks, though. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ED Facebook, Myspace, and Bebo

Hi! I started the discussion on the talk page. The ED Facebook, Myspace, and Bebo meet the criteria because they are official pages of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Otherwise they would not be allowed. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have to...

Resolved

I'm not going to read that whole business below. "A Nobody", let's just say you have pretty much blown a lot of credibility around here. Whatever you want us to believe about the Rogan account, we would have to be pretty stupid to think that the person behind this edit was someone not yourself. My honest advice to you is to not stretch that story any more then you have already. And I'll be clear, asserting that you didn't understand what RTV means after that production you made of it is more believable than the Rogan whopper but you aren't in a position to make that claim and have it pass the laugh test yet. I don't really plan to discuss you on my talk page, but if you happen to be the subject of some discussion, you are welcome to join in, constructively. To Sephiroth, I guess this means that I wouldn't want to pursue an RfC just yet, as he hasn't done anything objectionable since his return. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

General rule of thumb is that giant wall o'text = giant board of excuses and obscuring the issues, but in any case, I acknowledge your point Protonk, and I'll keep this discussion in mind in the future. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

File a RfC on the conduct of our old friend considering that he returned (sort of) from vanishing? I do remember that this was one of the requirements for him returning that was met with fairly widespread acceptance during the maelstrom surrounding his vanishing and reappearance as a sock. If this is beating a dead horse, I fully understand, but I was simply curious whether this is something that we are still going through with. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to sign on/contribute, but at this point I think it's pretty clear he's washed up and everyone has a leery eye on him. Rather than adding another high-activity page to my watchlist ;-), I think for the time being it might be best to see if Old Habits reappear -- and if they do, an RFC would be appropriate (and given some weirdness with his Mega Man character edits/redirects, who knows...). In the meantime, though, I just don't think he's worth the effort. --EEMIV (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with EEMIV here. It's far more difficult to justify an RfC based on August/September diffs in late October. It is much easier to do so if we can say "Here, this was his behavior before he left. Now he is back at it again". It would be a hard sell to uninvolved editors (who we already have to sell "this is not about inclusionism") to say "here was his behavior 2 months ago". I know it wasn't two months of him on wikipedia (Well, I suspect it was, but not on an account), but the problem of convincing folks there is a serious immediate issue is a hard one. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, his behavior isn't that much different. His pattern seems to be to do something strange/mildly disruptive until he starts taking flak for it, then disappears for a while, then comes back and moves on to something strange/mildly disruptive, but different. In this way, he always manages to avoid the hammer of accountability. Before his recent faux RTV, he was adding content to a article at AFD, then immediately merging the content into the obvious merge target, in an attempt to prevent deletion via the GFDL (Wikipedia:Merge and delete). When he started getting heat for that and his other mild disruptions, he began with the unspecified real-life concerns, and requested RTV. Now that he's back, he's doing this strange "start an article with content and redirect it less than a minute later" business, got some disapproving comments on his talk page for it, and responded by saying he was done for the day, and put a wikibreak notice on his talk page that looks like a "retired" banner. If we need to have an RFC for anything, it's his lack of taking accountability. He always dodges an RFC—"I'm not doing that anymore", "I'm not active", "I won't respect an RFC from you". Not to mention the biggest dodge of all. I have yet to read a sufficient explanation why off-wiki concerns should prevent me from being able to leave a message for another editor, provided I'm not revealing personal information (which I couldn't do, even if I wanted to). Pagrashtak 18:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The problem is that an RfC is fundamentally a political action. You have to convince a bunch of people who don't know the person that their behavior has been unacceptable. We already have an uphill battle in arguing that we aren't just a bunch of slavering deletionists out for blood. It is further more difficult to write one that argues he is "faking" this RTV thing in order to avoid scrutiny. That difficulty is distinct from what we think the truth of the matter may be. My suggestion is to wait until it becomes patently obvious and then say something. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your perspective makes sense, Pagrashtak; however, as Protonk points out, it's been a while since he's done something egregiously obnoxious. The Mega Man stuff is, as you say, "strange," but I don't think it's particularly disruptive. From my perspective, it's a matter of energy and payoff for an RFC -- I think an RFC right now would yield comment from the rest of community (those three who haven't stumbled upon all this already) along the lines, "Well, he's been slapped but hasn't crossed any lines since the summer/his return; let's see what happens." (I admit now, though, that I've never been involved or paid much attention to RFC on users.) I agree, he's slippery and his good-faith reserve is on fumes. But I also think the RTV drama garnered so much attention and beratement from those beyond the usual group at loggerheads with him that I'm willing to afford him some slack with his never-really-left-return. i.e., he fired up a sock named "Elisabeth" and then got completely shot down for both and patheticity (<-I hereby codify this as a word) and the complete lameness of the "let me pretend to be new" edit summaries -- yet he decided to come back. That suggests to me some underlying good faith and/or masochism and/or craziness -- but, regardless of which combination of the three, I'll use some of those fumes to assume some of the first being in play, and that his good-faith intentions might lead him to rein in the disruptive tendencies. Now, all that said: I don't for a second put it past him to fire up another/simultaneous sock, or just to revert to habit -- and if he does revert to form, as I said, I'll gladly figure out the RFC process to contribute. I just for the time being think the return on investment would be marginal -- in the end, I'm pretty sure the community has informally (though his talk page, ANI and e-mail) articulated what an RFC would suggest (although see experience caveat above); presenting it on a different page probably wouldn't affect the editor all that much -- if so many comments from other editors would impact him, it already has over the last few weeks of getting it from so many other directions. I appreciate that RFC has payoffs beyond offering feedback to the editor -- it's a record, and a way of setting precedent, among others -- but, ... yeah, I think a wait-and-see for the next week or so might be best. Sorry all this is a bit disjointed; I'm trying to halfway pay attention at a department meeting. --EEMIV (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The instructions I followed when I vanished versus a month after I was unvanished. If that is not enough to confuse/give mixed signals of what's okay to anyone then I don't know what is. --A Nobody 11:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you looked at some template instead of an actual guideline such as Wikipedia:Right to vanish. It says very clearly there that, "the individual, not the account, is vanishing. There is no coming back for that individual." and said so at the time of your departure. You began invoking RTV on 7 Sep 2008. Less than an hour after that post, Stifle informed you that RTV is for "users who wish to leave permanently". You seemed to understand and said that you were not planning to start over with a new account. Doesn't look like you were confused then. Pagrashtak 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't and I didn't. The checkuser came back as "likely" not "confirmed". And yes there is a difference. I use distictive IPs. If it were me, it would have been "confirmed." In addition to the numerous differences between that account's style and my own that far outweigh the similarities, she didn't use the same IPs I use. Yeah, I know who she is, but in order to prove that I would have had to out her (and in order to defend herself she would of had to out me) and that is something I will not do (and nor would she), because the truth is I do not trust certain editors with sensitive information (similarly why I and anyone would be an idiot to say post court documents on wiki proving harassment). Although I have spoken on the phone with a couple current and former admins and trust them to a certain degree, I never met any in real life and so I am hesitant in what would be safe to even send via email. What is more, Protonk and I have had some intense disagreements. Well, I know his real name and we have traded emails, but there's just no way I would post his real name here or anywhere or the contents of his or anyone else's emails. No matter how heated any of our disagreements got, I would not do that to him or anyone. The real truth of what happened in September is that I am not the only person in my family who has ever edited (the harassers had specific issues with specific ones of us) and if I am unwilling to out critics of me, I sure in heck wouldn't out family or friends. Even if it would clear me and let me have the "I told you so," some things are not worth it and I extend that respect to privacy to not just family and friends but also to those who do not like me (same reason why I haven't and would not post any emails I traded with say Sephiroth or anyone else here or post any other potentially revealing information). Because of my experiences I take privacy and confidentiality very seriously. But I mention the page I was following above regarding RtV, because I figured given the contradictory instructions about what RtV entailed in the off chance someone tried to see something that wasn't there she'd be okay and because her style was so different than mine (female, elaborate edit summaries, more likely to argue delete, wouldn't know the policy reasons to keep that I use, not likely to go back and forth with people as I would, etc.), she'd be okay, not to mention given the harassment issues people would be decent/honorable enough to not risk outing someone by pressing the issue and given that she would not use the same IPs as I used checkusers wouldn't confirm her anyway. Plus, she never participated in the same AfDs as me (nor did my two alternate accounts either, try them using that tool and you'll see that no account either confirmed or declared likely to be mine ever participated in the same AfDs). I never told her what to edit and how, although I have discussed Wikipedia with members of my family in the past and we all agree on inclusion in general. If she had not been shampooed, I would have indeed stayed vanished. But the truth is also that at the time, the instructions were in fact contradictory depending on where one looked. Finally, at the time of vanishing I was in a bit of desperation/a hurry where in order to get vanished I did not focus on reading the fine print of every last word or message anybody posted to me as it was a chore getting through the good faith and constructive posts and those made in bad faith and unconstructively. Now if you were in my shoes and you knew that the two alternate accounts that were yours never voted in the same discussion as your main account, the alleged third account was actually someone else with a fairly different style and she also avoided the same discussions you had been in, and then when she was accused you couldn't come out and show the revealing information distinguishing you and her as separate people because it would entail exposing real world information and yet saw all this firey rhetoric, hyperbole, and inaccuracy, how would you feel? Especially since neither you nor she was say engaging in vandalism or personal attacks or anything actually problematic. What would you think being in that impossible position? You know the truth, but what it would take to prove it would be to reveal information that is unacceptable to reveal and so you're forced having to contend with all those slurs and insults. And even now, I'd rather people hate A Nobody than risk compromising my or her real world indentities. And you can say what you want, but even with whatever negativity is tossed my way, I still won't post anything even remotely compromising about any of you. So, that's the reality of it. You can believe the truth or not, but I am not going to out anyone to clear myself and nor am I going to post the court documents concerning the harassment issue either, because that would be incredibly unwise. As far as editing here goes, I am done with AfDs. On the periodic circumstances when I do have time and come across something worthwhile in mainspace, I will edit in order to contribute content when and where I can, but I no longer have time to try to rescue articles and go back and forth with people uninterested in every seeing the article improved in some discussion as well. I have nothing more to say on the matter and do not believe anything worthwhile can be accomplished by discussing it further, especially given that I am not going to be posting in any of the AfD types of areas that I had run into conflict in the past anyway. In the limited capacity that I will ever edit again, it will be almost solely to add content and again far more sporadically than before. When I am here, I am here to help build the ultimate encyclopedia. I have contributed here in over 30,000 edits because I believe in that idea; the realization of what the philosophes could not achieve with paper, the cataloging of human knowledge for the betterment of humanity in general. That seems a worthy ideal. I again apologize to Protonk if he still didn't want me posting on his userpage; I have said what needed to be said and clarified things as best as I could. I don't have anthing new to add. As with his RfA, I am not going to take any additional time away from helping to build the ultimate encyclopedia discussing these what's done is done things any further. I am not going to be baited there or here or anywhere into distracting from our work on improving this site or even focusing on what matters to all of us in our real world lives. In the whirlwind of the recent past, I have tried really hard to come to some understanding with why people do and say certain things and if I've learned anything, not much can be accomplished by holding grudges. I do not wish to to resent anyone here. People should not go on despising each other. People can and should move on. I forgive those who have said misleading things about me and who have pushed some matters to the point of near fanaticism. Protonk, if you do become an admin (or even if you don't), for my part, the hatchet is buried; I sincerely wish you the best of luck either way whether as an editor or as an admin and all of you the best of success in making Wikipedia a better site. I hope that those of you still fighting over notability will listen to each other, not always assume that one side is "right," and find a compromise. Help each other out and you'll all be happier for it. If you see me around here and there, it'll be to add sources when I can, but that's pretty much it. With that, have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gibnews.net

I have removed your 'resolved' template on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because I do not agree, and had not been advised that there was a dispute about it.

Please review my additional comments on the subject there. It seems that certain editors have an agenda to rubbish websites I own, and indeed one recently copied and pasted material from gibnet.com to wilkisource in order to remove a link. However the material is presented without bias and IS in my opinion a reliable source, unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise.

In some cases the documents presented there are the ONLY Internet versions of original documents available. Removing links amounts to vandalism of the wikipedia article and suppression of original documents in order to promote a particular POV. --Gibnews (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• What is your relationship to Gibnews.net? Do you work for or operate the site? Do you select content that goes on there? Protonk (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the owners of it, and create some of the content, namely photographs which are not linked to Wikipedia, although some have been donated to the public domain via wikipedia commons. The site carries daily unfiltered Gibraltar news. If you read the terms of service you will see its objective is to be strictly neutral and what is published is written by the content providers shown, and is not my opinion.

I do not select or edit the content, indeed its a more accurate representation of the views of the sources opinions than the daily newspapers and TV station who edit press releases to produce derivative news stories.

Its not a 'blog' and has now been running for four years, other publications in Gibraltar use it as a resource because its has a complete and permanent record.

I do not see that it conflicts with Wikipedia:COI because although I am referencing material its original material not written or edited by me. Indeed other sources may have a policy against deep linking to content, or in the case of the Gibraltar Government website archive material each year so that links are unreliable.

Sadly one editor seems to have instituted a fatwa against my websites, and is copy and pasting content to wikisource to try and prevent anyone looking at them. Those links that are there are there because its an open available source with permalinks, I'm certainly not spamming wikipedia and try and use other news sources where they available.

Having explained the situation, I trust I can look forward to your support and the removal of adverse comments about the 'reliability' of the site. --Gibnews (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. On the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I noted that your site's terms of use specifically avoids selection or editing of content. Those are two characteristics that are vital to a reliable source, the third being a reputation for fact checking. I have no knowledge of your site's fact checking procedures, but if you don't edit or select content, then I am not sure how it could be a reliable source. If you wish you can make these points on the noticeboard post itself. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest you read the site terms of use again and note that we ONLY accept content from reliable sources, like for instance the Government of Gibraltar. The views expressed are those of the organisations credited. I really don't see how it can be better. --Gibnews (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the RS noticeboard. You should probably reply there as well, as other editors won't look at this discussion when attempting to judge if they feel gibnews is a reliable source. Protonk (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Sorry - not understanding what you're asking me to do. Doi. --Moni3 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it is probbly my inability to count.

Milk displayed an affinity for building coalitions early in his political career. The Teamsters union wanted to strike against beer distributors who refused to allow the union to recruit beer drivers. An organizer asked Milk for assistance with gay bars; in return, Milk asked the union to hire more gay drivers. Milk canvassed the gay bars in and surrounding the Castro District, urging them to refuse to sell the beer.

I think that we should make it more clear that milk had reached this deal with the teamsters before we say "milk canvassed the gay bars..." and we might also want to explain (in later sentences) the chinese shopkeeper bit. Was that due to milk? Due to the influence of another figure? This may seem obvious to (and it might be), but I was just reading and hit a hiccup there, so I figure it might be best to clarify. Protonk (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Chinese shopkeeper bit? That the strike was effective due to Chinese and Arab grocers? Not sure what the shopkeeper bit was. --Moni3 (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm so bad at this! :) I would bring this to the Milk talk page but you and dan have some mind meld over the ordering in the copyediting section and looking at it makes my brain explode. Yes, the Chinese and Arab shopkeepers. Did milk convince them to help with the strike as well? Did they do so independently? I have none of the refs on hand, so I don't want to be the bull in a china shop. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Aboard"

You might be right about that, but I generally rely on Maralia, who's active at WP:SHIPS and FAC, and according to Moni, she said "on" was better...check with her? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I left a question there. Thanks. As I see it both are probably fine for prose, I just didn't think that aboard was improper. Protonk (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned edit on RFA

Sorry, but looks like the bot got it. Should have gone to sleep an edit or too sooner.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)