User talk:Protonk/Archive 10

Program guides
Hi. I semi-randomly selected you (Firsfron, Masem, Protonk) as major participants in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30, which I didn't follow closely. The subject has arisen again at Village pump (proposals), and I was wondering if any of you could give a short/neutral summary at the VPump, of what the WT:NOT thread's consensus was, if any. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Made a limp response at VP. Thanks for asking my opinion, but I don't know how well I can judge consensus on that thread. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All gnus, all the time
Yes, if you're going to have infotainment, you might as well have it with added cleavage. But as for these two people, they're nobodies. Washington needs the return of the Right man for the job. -- Hoary (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?
Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Calibration
I unprotected because I blocked the IP that was vandalizing it. I have no objection if you wish to reprotect, however.  Enigma msg  18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bloviate (3rd nomination)
You participated in the AfD discussion of Bloviate in July 2008. A year and five months after Articles for deletion/Bloviate (2nd nomination) was closed as keep, the article has been renominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the debate, please comment at Articles for deletion/Bloviate (3rd nomination). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Anecdote
I gave enough information for most editors who were active on ANI at the relevant time to know immediately who I meant. You are right - there are many admins who I feel should have apologized for their behaviour, as I said, I do not recall if you were involved (there are several who I do recall without having to look back into the history). My comments were directed at readers of the board generally rather than to you specifically, so I am sorry if it came across as being directed at you, for that was not my intent. I'm posting this here rather than in the thread because it's already too messy there. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks for taking the time to come here.  My comments were literally directed at you, since I have seen you hurl general accusations about admins enough to feel irked about it.  Please consider the prospect that there is enormous heterogeneity in the admin corp.  There are admins like me who aren't terribly active but post on the drama boards.  There are admins who log hundreds of uncontentious actions a week.  There are admins who mostly edit content but use the tools sparingly.  there are admins who belong to cliques, have distinct politics (wiki or otherwise) and so forth.  There are editors who sound like admins and aren't (and vice versa).  We are all quite different from each other.  Some of us (as noted in the support/oppose thread) are relatively more willing to handle dissent than others, either because of frustration or some internal willingness to accept autocracy.  Obviously, if I feel stung about a particular accusation, I may protest too much, but please understand that some value is lost in escalating small disputes by accusing editors of conspiracies or conflating minor issues with "admin abuse". Protonk (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, too few of the good admins seem willing to take to task the really bad ones (and there are several of them). We do see "groupthink" on the noticeboards (the expression of class-interest, a Marxist like Rowse would call it) - heterogeneous groups do find common ground, and too often the common ground that they find on Wikipedia is that of status. We also do see double standards (again often an expression of class-interest) - in the last year even to the extent of admins arguing (succesfully to the extent that the villain of the piece was not blocked) that calling someone a pervert was acceptable, while those calling him a bigot for his long history of bigoted language were threatened with blocks. I'll readily agree that my style is not always the most emollient, but in my experience asking nicely and meekly don't achieve much.
 * As for CoM - I have no particular opinion of him either way, except that I see him as a symptom of some of the grave underlying faults in Wikipedia's structure. It sticks in my craw to see non-admins hounded for behaviour that is no more disruptive than that which is indulged in by certain favoured editors and admins (an expression of my own class-interest), and I do feel that reform needs to start at the top rather than the bottom.
 * I appreciate that it is very difficult for admins to do anything about those of their colleagues who give the rest of you a bad name, but it is a thousand times harder for the rest of us. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well my glib reply is that marxians (or marxists, I suppose) overstate the implications and spread of class interest. We are far better described by Bourdieu's comments about symbolic capital and awareness of status.  Marx presupposes (or asserts, if you will) animosity between our bourgeois and proles (I guess admins and regular editors...).  It is much more likely that admins (and/or "regulars") attempt to protect orthodoxy by establishing implicitly what kinds of discourse are acceptable and unacceptable--a distinction which could easily shuffle complaints about abuse into the "unacceptable" category.  On the surface it would appear that we are attempting to maintain decorum, but subconsiously we are eliminating the basis for dissent.  So as you say above, we demand that folks ask nicely because those who ask nicely tend not to want outlandish things, given that they are asking nicely.  But posing these questions as a matter of class interest precludes nuance.  I can't distinguish between admins acting as a local clique and those abusing powers unilaterally.  And I can't tease out selection bias when making broad inferences about who gets blocked and why--meaning that admins get blocks at a much lower rate than non admins, not just because they have friends/tools/etc but because they misbehave at a lower rate (due to a variety of reasons).
 * And eliminating that nuance damages attempts to make a resolution. Why do admins edit war with rollback and not get punished?  Because in order to remove rollback from an admin we have to remove the whole bit and often edit warring with rollback is insufficient to justify de-sysopping (often, but not always).  Solution?  Devolved rollback from the bit completely.  But we can't reach that solution if we are convinced that the true problem lies in a refusal of the "admin and proto-admin class" to recognize failure/abuse.  The list can and does go on. Protonk (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Escalation
Hey Protonk. I just have one comment on something that struck me from your comments at ANI. You talked a lot about "escalation" in your accusations, yet the original dispute is a good faith editor who has made very substantial improvements to our content being indefinitely blocked. So to accuse anyone who seeks a better outcome of escalating the situation seems patently absurd and outrageous. If you want to deescalate the situation, unblock the fellow and work out an amicable solution. Braying about others "escalating" situations where you and your cronies have silenced and caged someone you disagree with outside the community shows a level of arrogance and willfull neglect that just isn't right and that you should be embarassed about. It's disgraceful. It would be amusing to hear these admin complaints about those who don't appreciate their brutalist approach to community and encyclopedia building if it weren't for the very real damage that's being done to the encyclopedia and to our community. That it takes a level of daring to question the often robust, biased, and abusive enforcements carried out by our admins should give you serious pause. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have cronies. I also don't have the foggiest idea as to the particulars of the most recent bit of admin abuse you complained about. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps you should get clued into the facts of a situations before spouting off about it (and me). You know what they say about opinions.
 * When a good faith editor and a major contributor to the encyclopedia is blocked indefinitely, ranting about unnecessary "escalation"s seems pretty silly. I'm here to help write a great encyclopedia and I think the community building and collegial cooperation should be our focus in that respect. Trying to eliminate those who don't share our beliefs or support our arguments has no place. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. My point was more to say that you may attempt to confuse the issue of your general habit of inserting yourself in all and sundry AN/I discussion with the particulars of the most recent discussion you happened to be involved with, but I don't care.  Asking editors if they want or don't want an article on Larry Craig's bathroom incident only demonstrates the point.  I'll also take your characterization of the situation with a grain of salt.  Back to the first sentence of my response: I don't have cronies.  Your continual insistence that admins are conspiring against you or are engaged in some sort of communal attempt to destroy the encyclopedia wears thin. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussing our BLP guidelines and which subjects deserve independent articles certainly seems more useful to encyclopedia building than the abstract arguments you were engaging in about events you are apparently totally unfamiliar with. What wears thin is the abusive behaviors, bullying, harassment and intimidation engaged in on this website under the guise of "civility enforcement", often by those pushing their personal points of view. Your accusations of "attempts to confuse" is a classic example of the type of personal attack and bad faith accusatory smears that are made by the worst elements of our community. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we are done here, as I suspect you'll carry on regardless of what I say. Also, no need to redact on the fear that I'll get upset if you call me a hypocrite.  So long as you are contributing something you are free to tell me exactly how you feel.  The worst that will come from me (I can't promise anyone else won't get offended on my behalf, but they shouldn't, if they are reading this) is that the comment might be reverted summarily. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion with me. I think it would have been pretty extraordinary if we had convinced each other of anything much, but I still think it's worth hearing out what one another have to say. I've said my piece and I appreciate your considering what I've had to say as I will try to digest your comments. I think our site would be better off if there was more discussion (even if some of it gets intense on occasion) and fewer threats and blocks. When editors we disagree with are labeled "problematic" and "disruptive" because we disagree with them, that's a very dangerous precedent. Take care. Happy Holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


Ret.Prof (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Arbcom election
FYI - there's a request for feedback on the ArbCom election. No question about the choice of switching using a secret ballot, but I dropped a line on the talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Email
Hi Protonk. You have email. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended block
FYI diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries
I was bending over backwards to avoid accusations of bias in the announcement, since one of the process' proponents has been veeeeery slooooowly notifying the members of WikiProject Adminship one-by-one, with explicit reference to how carefully he was adhering to WP:CANVASS, instead of just posting an open request on public noticeboards. I'll admit, I was desperately trying to come up with a way to point people to the relevant pages and discussion without coming across as completely wooden, and I freely confess that I failed utterly. :D

I think I was mostly frustrated with Fences and Windows trying to reargue the case right underneath my painstakingly-crafted utterly-neutral notice; you just got a little bit of the spillover irritation. For the record, I actually approve of Jehochman's suggestion to substitute Queensbury rules if the motion doesn't produce a clear result. Happy holiday editing! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC/U
Hi there,

I'm inviting you to have a look at the Asgardian RFC/U here. For a change, this one has nothing to do with the eternal notability argument. ;) BOZ (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

TheSmokingGun.com
Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!--otherlleft 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional spaceships revisited
Hello Protonk. I'm going through and removing what appear to be non-notable spacecraft from the List of fictional spaceships page. This could take some time, but I'm starting with the ones that are so trivial that they are neither sourced nor mentioned by the parent article. On to my question... I added a refimprove template to this page and have had the addition overturned by another editor with the comment "I feel strongly that sourcing belongs to the target article, not this one. If the target article cannot prove sourcing then tag that article, we do not need to re-provide sources in every article". I disagree with that, especially in light of the current condition of most of the parent articles. I'm seeking the advice of an administrator with regards to parent/child articles, is it true that child articles do not need to be sourced? What if the parent article is deleted and becomes orphaned, that would create an obvious problem and I just disagree with it from a logical perspective. I am going to take a short break and think about this some more. I welcome the advice of anyone else in case you'd like to defer this question to another editor. JBsupreme (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

May I please have my user account re-activated?
I'm "TCO".

I requested a several month banning to assist me with weight loss (May 10 2009). "Ban my fat ass, bitch."

I have lost 70 pounds in 6 months and gained 40% strength weightlifting (thus building muscle, nescessarily). Have ripped abs and am single digit bf%.

Toddst decided to ban me forever, for my multi-month request, to you. He had banned me a few times before...so maybe he thinks I deserve to be flushed forever. (Which he could have a case for...) But, well...I'm honestly not fat anymore. So...ummm...there.

Please?

Umm...and if the answer is "no", that's OK. I will try to refrain from block evading. I think I have made 10 or so small article comments (mostly pretty inocous, maybe one or two joking/trolling...but even those were more gentle than my norm) during last several months under IPs, but been almost completely inactive. So...really will try to not do any block evading at all. Go cold turkey.

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

renewal of semi of Wikipedia talk:About?
The semi-protection expired and the junk comments are back again. --Cyber cobra (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of a book by Rawles
Sir: You may recall an AfD discussion last year for James Wesley Rawles. (The result was keep.) Well, now a wiki article on one of his books has been AfDed. Your sage comments, one way or the other, would be appreciated. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/How_to_Survive_the_End_of_the_World_as_We_Know_It Trasel (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

ATF Cleaner
Hey Protonk. I would like to request a copy of the deleted article ATF Cleaner be placed at User:Noian/Sandbox. I believe that the article might warrant re-writing. It was deleted due to no "reliable assertions of notability" despite the fact the software is used on many, many antivirus/malware forums and even by commercial geeksquad which I found a cite recently and noted in newspapers (ex. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/advice/3354944/Faqs-Facts-Fax-Spam-filter.html) after learning some tricks with google. Thank you. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  08:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Noian/Sandbox/ATF Cleaner. Done. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  01:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles / A Nobody
One thing that speaks for going through with the RfAr against A Nobody though is the fact that his "farewell message" (crossposted to all Arbs on Meta) is a last-ditch attempt of his to avert the RfAr. That can only mean one thing: that he is still actually trying to sit it out and return later. --84.44.254.108 (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see the benefit of hashing out a full case without a willing participant or an outcome other than sitebanning. Just easier for all concerned to ban him by motion and be done with it.  As for the farewell message, I can only chuckle.  The arbs are required to extend good faith, but that is pushing it. Protonk (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'm probably just being a little vindictive. Must be something in his Cartman-esque denialism. --84.44.254.108 (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But you are probably right. He's coming back.  Iron law of social networks: if someone makes a big show of leaving, they aren't gone for good. Protonk (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * cf. Shaker's Law. Otoh, I'm just waiting for Skarka's Law to be satisfied again. --84.44.254.108 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Ping me, if you like. Ready? Jack Merridew 13:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * GoodBye ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Entirely unrelated, I'm sure, but interesting anyway: (Jack, I can't ping you since your talk page is semiprotected.) --78.34.232.74 (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * my pages are indef-semi'd due to too much vandalism. (you can email me). Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised I wasn't in the first batch. I tried to check if my account name was blocked but Wikia is so damn confusing.  Glad lgrdc cleared all that up for me.  Jack, who did you complain to when your account was blocked on Wikia? Protonk (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Angela ;) Most of the discussion and email was with User:Sannse, who's a staff "Community Manager". This was on community.wikia.com; see and . Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Grant and Keynes.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Grant and Keynes.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 23:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Protonk, sorry to add to the bother, but could you also grace us over at. Does this book provide photographer/prior-print information for other images in the book? John Vandenberg (chat) 00:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, didn't know deletion discussions stayed up that long. Sure. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree
I disagree it was belabouring the point. The OP claimed that there had only been one case where this caused problems and in a rather public place, the reference desk where we value factual claims. Considering there is an entire subpage of discussion, this is clearly untrue, and in fact I've seen this issue come up plenty of times yet I'm barely involved in ANI, VP etc so I think it likely anyone who is regular participant of these places wouldn't notice (in other words, if someone is unaware of this long standing and common issue, it likely means they don't pay much attention to such places either so need to be careful about making assumptions).

While I fully accept the error was made in good faith, I strongly dislike such clear untruths and see no reason not to point it out when I come across them.

In this particular case, since the OP was defending something which is strongly discouraged in the guidelines by making claims which were untrue, I do think the OP should take more care before making such claims in the future and in particular, not get so defensive about it when it was pointed out what they considered a harmless prank was something others strongly dislike (so much as it involved a whole subpage of discussions). I likely would have left it on the RD, except the section had already been collapsed (as I realised after composing my reply) so I respected that and added my comment to the collapsed section but since it seemed there was a fair chance the OP would not read my comments, I decided it wise to add them to his/her talk page.

Perhaps I should have simply offered a link, but if the OP wished to further discuss my comments, which I do consider their right, it seemed the RD wasn't really the place to do it, so I left a complete message on their talk page. As the OP has since collapsed the section on their talk page, with no apparent wish to discuss this further, I respect that and haven't edited his/her page further, but I don't consider there was anything wrong with informing the OP their claims were clearly untrue in the hope they will be better informed and do not make such claims any more.

And yes, I do consider this important because untruths even one made because of genuinely held mistaken beliefs and without any ill intent can greatly harm a discussion which is why I take great care to avoid them and point them out whenever I see them even if the discussion seems dead. If the OP takes offense at people pointing out they were wrong, that's unfortunate but IMHO ultimately it's better to be wise/well informed and offended, then happy but a fool/ill informed. (We had one unfortunate case on the RD where someone went as far as to manufacture a modified scan of an old book in an event to hide the fact they had been mistaken.) Not everyone may agree with this point which is their right, just as it is my right to feel that way.

I admit I was initially aiming to be resonably polite. However as I read more of what they said and how they'd responded, I saw less reason to be polite. As I fully acknowledge in my response, it was good that they took the thing do on request, but since it was in the guidelines and they are an experienced user it's not unresonable to expect they should be somewhat familiar with the guidelines, or at least willing to check them. Grumbling about people for asking you to take something down which was strongly discouraged by the guidelines and involved a whole subpage of discussions (and numerous others since and before in other places I'm quite sure) is not the sort of behaviour I find endearing (as with others I think, I do find the way they responded basically like a No apology apology). I'm a strong believer of being polite to those who deserve it, but not mincing my words to those who don't deserve it (i.e. if you're rude to me or others, don't be surprised if I'm non too polite in return). Again not everyone may agree with this but I do consider the rights of all wikipedians and I do do my best to ensure I obey the WP:Civility guidelines and avoid WP:NPA in all cases (something which the OP didn't seem to do in this case), although I'll admit there was one cases where I didn't initially obey this on the WP:RD/S (however I'll freely admit I consider coming across someone who basically admits to behaviour which puts the lives of others in grave risk a far worse thing then whatever happened in this case so don't have much sympathy for the OP).

P.S. On a personal note, I don't really care about such stimulation of the mediawiki interface if it isn't the extreme of logging people out. I do have a rather low opinion of people who does that sort of thing but I don't personally care much about that sort of things (and if anything it suggests to me that the person who does it is is the kind of person I shouldn't spend too much time over so in some ways allowing it allows people to judge the sort of person who added it in the first place), however the community apparently including JW & the arbcom of the time clearly does not agree.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's his talk page. The dispute was over.  Lecturing him on whether or not he was wrong to have the opinion he did after the fact is belaboring the point.  I'll admit a bias here; I feel the prohibition on spoofing media-wiki interfaces is asinine and overstated.  Our job here isn't to make sure that others see great truths or to right great wrongs.  Our job is to write an encyclopedia.  Sometimes that involves dealing with no one, dealing with nice people or dealing with jerks.  If you find yourself dealing with a jerk one of the most effective methods of adaption is to carry on normally and update your opinion of the person.  Not to attempt to cure their condition--unless you are staving off an incipient dispute or fixing a long standing feud (though the success rate of the latter type is pretty grim). Protonk (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but you seem to imply rather strongly that you see me as a jerk. Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption or please redact. I usually couldn't care less but I too have a limit in ignoring personal attack and bad fait accusations.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? No, but I'm sure the people you pissed off see you as a jerk.  I just see you as someone who had a harmless prank on your page, got poked and responded intemperately.  The whole situation would have been better off had A: people not stormed in and wielded the word "disruptive" like a pole-axe and/or accusing you of lying or B: had you handled the situation with more grace and not accused people of trolling or stoking drama.  Of course none of that happened and all I did was tell someone who was (in my mind) lecturing you after the fact to buzz off (and stop someone from edit warring on your talk page).  How that adds up to implying you are a jerk is unclear to me . Protonk (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine with me and I'll put it back to rest.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The strike-out was not necessary but thanks anyways. Best. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks for your post on my talkpage. I did appreciate it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia user page (from wikinews)
What I meant was that I wanted my current page deleted (I will create it again), and my old pages redirected to my new one (already done). Avenged Eightfold (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. If I messed up let me know and I'll fix it as best I can.  Have a nice day. Protonk (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Avenged Eightfold (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)