User talk:Protonk/Archive 11

Math econ
Hi, P. Good point on "what constitutes a mathematical economist" but relative judgments are possible. Additionally, thanks to your efforts, MEs might actually find "ME" of interest, including the list, the better to improve both. It can always by rmved come FA rev. time, which is at least conceivable, given present quality — a really rara avis in Econ. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I don't have a strong enough feeling about the list to remove it.  The best possible outcome would be a standalone list with a summary section in the ME article.  As for FA, there is an excellent peer review which covers some gaps in the article (namely everything in mathematical econ post 1950s Arrow because I didn't understand what was and wasn't important) before it gets close to FA. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One convenient source (unchanged from the 1987 I think) is Debreu's ME article in The New Palgrave -- about 4 double-columned pp. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

userfy
Could you please userfy Debrahlee Lorenzana to me? Also, as you closed it as a BLP1E deletion, could you suggest a title for the "event" article? "Firing of" seems to narrow and "lawsuit of" seems even more so. I'm going to go with "Firing of" unless someone has a better title. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I don't have any real opinions about a title, apart from a general comment that making an article on the event is about as prone to the same issues BLP1E hopes to avoid as an article on a person would be. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If it is one event, there really should be a clear title for it...  Ignoring that I think an article on the event and it's coverage meets both WP:BLP1E (which only addresses articles on a person) and WP:EVENT (sustained coverage, used as a case study, etc. etc.)  Of course the majority in both cases thought it wasn't a single event, so I guess it's not surprising this is rough.  Ah well, I'll try it anyways. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You've given me an idea
On WP:DELPRO you say that WP:NAC is not a guideline, but might as well be one. You've given me an essay idea. An essay about "pseudo policy". A listing of essays that are often quoted as if they were a policy or guideline. Besides WP:NAC, some other examples might be...

WP:BEFORE, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:HAMMER, WP:ATA and sometimes even WP:GARAGE are quoted as if they were policy in AFDs.

I remember an ANI thread about an editor being blocked for violating WP:DTTR and I have seen WP:COMPETENCE used in block messages. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I should make clear my prejudices. I think there are two kinds of pseudo-policy essays.  Those which cannot be made into policies for structural reasons, either because they describe empirical regularities (WP:HAMMER) or because they describe philosophical stances (meta:Eventualism).  The second kind are essays which could and should (?) be policies, but aren't made into policy because doing so is a pain in the ass or because they are controversial.  WP:DTTR is basically an essay in policy format.  It describes a common practice, proscribes an action and suggests alternate options.
 * If wikipedians love one thing, it is rules. We love policies, guidelines, checklists, due process and procedures.  Love 'em.  In a lot of ways this is an ironic consequence of our pseudo techno-anarchy.  Spaces without nominal authority tend to be managed (esp. on the web) by individuals with charismatic authority.  Strong and compelling personalities drive these spaces, all while disclaiming the significance of their power (wikipedia's original stance on admins, WP:DEAL is a study in cognitive dissonance).  Users get angry with charismatic leadership because it violates some tenets of fairness (though not others).  Charismatic leaders may make idiosyncratic decisions, favor other charismatic actors (meaning they agree more often with people who can plead their case competently), etc.  Obviously these habits come into violent conflict with expectations about the new technical neutrality of things.  So we make rules.  But rules get bent.  Equipped only with rules in our toolbox, we make more rules.  Interestingly enough this invites a different kind of charismatic authority; users who can navigate and understand the forest of rules we have set up for ourselves get rewarded.  But you can't make it too obvious that you are navigating the rules well, we have a rule against that (another essay, really)!  Protonk (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've certainly included WP:COMPETENCE in block messages. It's not really something one can violate, but it is certainly a good explanation for why I made the block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've almost completely forgotten that I made this post and that's why it's taken me so long to reply. In the case of "observational" pseudo-policy, I think we need to discourage them being argued directly in deletion discussions. That's what I tried to do in regards to WP:HAMMER when I closed this AFD. I also think WP:ATA is overused. Some of the arguments in that essay can be used legitimately in some situations like WP:NOHARM. (I'll use that in DRVs on AFDs for "low risk" articles where the "keep" !votes were weak) "No google hits, must be a hoax" can also be used legitimately. More often then not if there are no google hits then the subject is a hoax or something completely unverifiable.

Also, I've not actually written that essay. I have lots of essay ideas and so far I have only followed through with one of them. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting assistance
Hi, Protonk, I don't know if I'm at the right place here, but as a beginner wikipedian, I'd like to ask for your help. See, I'm part of a student project (with a few other guys) that aims to wiki the Economy of Hungary to a good article status. We've been working on it for more than a year now (though with varying intensity - we've had our ups and downs), and at this point we believe it's best if we contact a pro that's more of an insider when it comes to wiki's protocols and policies (and more importantly, the good article process).

We've studied of course the good article criteria and did a lot of work on the article to rebuild it from its abysmal state, but we're in the dark here: we don't know what's the next step. Would it be too out there if I asked you to check the article out? Again, we're newcomers here more or less, we don't know if this is all right. We would welcome your comments or any of your ideas on how to enhance the article further, or how to advance with the good article process.

Ps. I found you because you have 'economics' marked as an interest of yours in the participants' list. I would most certainly welcome any pointers to other wikipedians that could help us in this matter, if anyone comes to your mind.&mdash;Spliceseven(talk) 17:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try and help as best I can. I don't know if I am the best resource for "Economy of ______" style articles, because an "Economy of Hungary" article is as much about the history of the country as it is about economics.  At a first glance the article looks reasonably comprehensive.  Here are some comments:
 * Take a look at the external link policy and see which external links might not be necessary (most of the ones in the EL section seem ok, but double check)
 * Try and standardize your references. Most of your references are from websites, which is fine, but many are from policy papers and other whitepapers where a more accurate citation might help future readers discover the original source more easily.  For your Hungarian-only sources, consider adding a small english translation to the footnote.  I can help you do this if you like.
 * You might want to expand the lead of the article a bit. For an article of this size, the lead can be 3-4 paragraphs and should give a brief summary of all major points in the article.
 * Some of the prose is clunky, but nothing that a good copy-editor couldn't fix.
 * The history section should probably be re-written with the bullet points in the first section merged into prose, some more scholarly sources (I know there is a lot of research on near-eastern european privatization) on the transitional economy section and a bit more on the recent crisis (but not much more)
 * Overall it looks like a great work. I will try to help with the article over the next week.  Once the article gets some coverage by a good copy editor and sees some small changes you should list it on the good article nomination page.  Once you do that we can talk about how that process works and what you can do to speed it along. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Protonk's Day!

 * Woohoo! Protonk (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
 * Uh-huh.... 05:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any personal attacks in there and I have left what I hope is a friendly and non-templated note asking that he not do this again. --John (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Thanks for stalking. :) Protonk (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * NP. AN/I beats network TV any day for drama! --John (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, anytime I see Clay Shirky talking about cognitive surplus I want to ask him what percentage of that surplus is going into AN/I instead of I Love Lucy. :) Protonk (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WQA
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Phoon (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure
You ask nicely or at least not in a nasty way and people will listen to you. Act like Toddst1 and people just get mad.RIPGC (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears I'm on a roll. Tan was right about a few things. Toddst1 (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah. 2/2.  I can't say I'm shocked.  People are bizarre. Protonk (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
hi proton i am almost surprised by the deletion action taken by you on the wikipedia article "BIOMECHANICS OF INTRINSIC GRAVITY" because the this new field has now been an important area of research. Gravitation biology is the only answer to many seen and unseen biological phenomenon. Establishment of intrinsic gravitaional strength is the answer to a very basic facts of life like embryology. I hope to receive a reply for your kind removal of an article that forecasts the future of biophysics on my talk page I.R.BHATTACHARJEE. Being the author of the article, i expect a kind a generous repy from your side — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.R.Bhattacharjee (talk • contribs)

Hi, Protonk, I appreciate your concern that Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Gravity Dictates Life Death/ Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity/ Self Gravitation bio, Wikipedia is not the publisher of first instance.From 1988 onward, there is lot of progress. For instance, http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/8170193206/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&qid=1281614017&sr=1-1&condition=all; http://icbp2007.congresoselis.info/resumenAmpliado.php?idTL=455; http://www.cell.com/biophysj/archive/issue?pii=S0006-3495(08)X7185-1; http://www.abstractsonline.com/plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?mID=2294&sKey=ffbcc7a6-e87c-4238-ad30-edbd4b98b188&cKey=9cd3dd26-1f59-495a-8b50-7d603bb78a44&mKey=699dea71-10c2-4fff-a9e0-62aa4824fb1e; Eur Biophys J (2009)38(suppl 1):s35-s212 springer DOI 10-1007/s00249-009-0478-1 etc. are some of the documents I could locate in the net today. From all these instances, it is clear that, as regard 'Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity', Wikipedia is not the publisher of first instance. Rather all information are from secondary sources, with appropriately linked and reference. Considering its importance, Biophysical Society, USA which has about 8000 membership globally has included, christening it as "Self Gravitation Bio". European Biophysical Society has also agreed, apart from Indian Science Congress Association. So when a common widely accepted consensus has been built up, the decision of deletion "biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity" is not understood. So I appeal to you to reconsider your decision in favour of progress in science. A kind review of the article and your suggestions regarding any changes will be highly appreciated. Nature itself is tough to understand. So compiled from primary sources with all links are attached below for a fresh decision from your end. Your suggestion in any manner is welcome.


 * I'll respond more later. In the meantime I have moved your draft article to User:I.R.Bhattacharjee/BmecGrav.  Working there will mean that you won't have to immediately deal with deletion, but you can not link to that page from regular articles and after a reasonable period of time (months, at a minimum) the page may be deleted if it is not being used as an active draft space. Protonk (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Proton, The article has been provided to you and developed from its rudimentary stage to its matured form for a response  regarding its republication into wikipedia. I have already made the necessary changes and provided you with the information regarding its compliance with the wikipedias publishing terms and condition policy (Which was a key issue for its deletion). So i would appreciate if you could mention me in details about your above response. I would have been happy to receive some changes if required regarding its quick incorporation into as a wiki article.

Hi wise Protonk: A story goes that a king did not trust his human body guard. He employed a faithfull monkey instead. One day, King was sleeping and a fly was disturbing his sleep. Faithful monkey first tried to chase the fly. But when failed, monkey decided to cut and murder the fly. He forgot that fly was sitting on the forehead of the king. Monkey cut the fly but simultaneously kills the king unknowingly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Administrators deserves not to play the role of such monkey, that while enforcing certain regulation of their choice, thay should not wipe out whole of the knowledge created. "Biomechanic of intrinsic gravity" is a new knowledge created and compiled as secondary source, well circulated, well enthused from the scientific community. Deletion excercise in totality is nothing but the wisdom of the aforesaid monkey. If the Wikipedia decides that such a theme is nonsense, welcome to see the fate of Wikipedia, what has happened to the aforesaid King, though it may sound little harsh. Be Wise while act. Leadership of Wikipedia is first.

Hi Protonk, I am now on tour having limited net facility. In the mean time I am waiting for your word "I'ill respond later". I request, you would allow restoration of the revised article "Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity" in general interest of promotion of knowledge from Wikipedia.


 * Sorry for the delay. My general thought is prosaic: the article was deleted in a deletion discussion and the only real way I can overturn that is to open a deletion review.  That sounds bureaucratic but it is the only way to be fair to the editors who participated in that discussion and the admin who closed it.  As such, appealing to my sense of fairness is probably a waste of your time.  I can help you write the deletion review request and I will even post one on your behalf, but I can't and won't overturn the decision myself.  As for your comments on the merits of the deletion itself, I don't have the technical capability to judge the relevance of the field.  However Wikipedia plays inadvertent host to hundreds of nacent scientific field articles created by the major researchers in those fields and nearly all of those articles are not appropriate for a general purpose encyclopedia.  The shorthand rule is that if you have to write the article yourself, it doesn't belong on wikipedia.  If and when someone with no material interest in this field writes an article, then it will probably be acceptable for inclusion.  That rule operates on a very rough proxy for notability but it works remarkably well.  Perhaps this sounds capricious or at the very least counterproductive.  Most academics feel strongly about our general guidelines for article writing because they seem perverse in comparison to the expectations of academic publishing.  We would prefer a hypothetical disinterested observer over a subject matter expert, but few other venues for publication would have the same preference.  We may even have other very parochial articles written on subjects which seem like yours--a contradiction we can't immediately correct or justify because rules on wikipedia aren't systems of logical axioms applied in a Procrustean fashion.  The rules are general guides.  Where they apply and can be enforced with little fuss, they are generally enforced with near uniformity.  where there is considerable heterogeneity in article content, editor passion or rule applicability (as is the case in the science articles), they are enforced more sporadically.  The level and scope of enforcement doesn't necessarily speak to the validity of any given rule.  So my suggestion is, find a subject which interests you but which you have no personal connection to and write about that.  You will find that the lack of connection both improves the quality of your writing (it does mine, I write much better prose on subject with which I have little ex ante familiarity) and sidesteps any issues of private knowledge or conflicts of interests.  I hope that explanation helps somewhat. Protonk (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Protonk. Thanks for your prompt response now.I welcome your word and personal suggestions. In the mean time I am continuing with limited net facility. So I request you to please do on my behalf. {Ref:I can help you write the deletion review request and I will even post one on your behalf, but I can't and won't overturn the decision myself.} Please do the same (with my revised and appropriately referenced article) on my behalf, as I will have to continue on tour for pretty long period. With personal regards.
 * I'm out of town until Monday afternoon. I will write and post the deletion review request then. Protonk (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Deletion review/Log/2010 August 30, your DRV is listed there. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light clarification
Hi there I just wanted to let you know that the Speed of Light clarification has been merged with A/R/A. NW ( Talk ) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

GabeMc's draft of the Autobiography
Hello Protonk, here is a link to my draft, I would greatly appreciate any help and advice you are willing to give me as it moves forward. Any suggestions on content, format, style, etc... would be welcome. Be blunt, bold, and honest, I want the article to be as good as it can be. You will notice that much of it is pulled directly from your analysis. Which I think was the best starting point for describing this subject accurately. There are some synthesis and original research issues, but nothing that can't be worked our with verbiage changes and reliable sourcing. Like I said, let's make Wiki's the best article there is on the subject. Please feel free to make comments on my draft at it's discussion page. Nothing is set in stone, and everything can be changed, I am willing to do whatever it takes to get the article right. Thanks again for your time and expertise. — GabeMc (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look at this tomorrow. My very brief comment is that stylistically it is a quote farm at the moment.  You should look at which quotes can't be summarized (because they are distilled already or otherwise important to a reader) and keep those in the body.  The rest should be summarized in paragraph text.  If you like you can leave quotes in the footnote text (See WP:REFPUN) for sources which aren't available on google books. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A day late, no later. I promise.  After the 19th I'll be out of the loop for a little while, so I hope to get a basic suggestion out before then.  Back on the 23rd, regardless. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Protonk, I adjusted my AMX article draft based on your suggestions, and while there is still much work to be done, I think I am ready for another round of comments. I will be taking a couple days off, and returning to editing the article on Friday, I would appreciate another set of suggestions by then if your time permits. I am waiting on, The Cambridge Companion to Malcolm X By Robert E. Terrill, I am pretty sure this is the best source I have found so far, and the book is on it's way to me now, it should prove helpful in finishing the article. — GabeMc (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just got back last night, will take another look early this week. Protonk (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll wait until you get that new book to take another look, but my general thought is that this is ready for prime time. I don't want to stir up a shitstorm but I think that your draft about settled Malik's complaints vis a vis the old article: making clear the agency of malcolm x and the purported relationship between the two men and noting that contemporaries really did view it as a ghostwriting.  Malik's draft is pretty small and hasn't been updated for a while, so (thankfully) there are two totally independent dueling drafts which might have to be reconciled.  If you can answer Dan's questions, can post a link to the draft w/ a request for Malik to comment and the talk page doesn't explode again I think we can start merging your draft in earnest to the mainspace article.  Hope that isn't too drawn out or complicated. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, I left comments on Dank's suggestions and Malik is going to read the draft and comment on it this weekend. I will then work Malik's suggestions into the article as I wait for the Cambridge companion. I will ping your talk page again when Malik's comments have been worked in, and when I have utilized the Cambridge book. Thanks again for all your help and good advice Protonk! — GabeMc (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be out of town from tomorrow morning until monday. Sporadic internet access w/ a mobile device, so I can check in on the draft but won't really be able to produce much of value.  I hope to come back to a lively and productive discussion. :) Protonk (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, Malik's much anticipated response. I have decided that I will not waste anymore of my precious time dealing with Malik. I think he is trying to wear me out by attrition, and his strategy seems to be to just keep grinding me until I just give up on the article. This is a clearcut article ownership issue and I'm not sure what I can do. I have worked on this for months now, and I think he won't agree to anything he didn't write himself. He hasn't budged one inch for me the entire time, since I first started improving the article on June 25th. While I won't waste anymore time on Malik, I will finish the article. Any suggestions on how we proceed? — GabeMc (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at what Malik has in mind, Here are his current suggestions. Like I said, I am done with Malik, and I will not work with him on this project that has already taken over two months. If there was edit warring it was because I was trying to call Haley a collaborator, obviously I was correct, and Malik was not. So if he is to be included in this process, I will have to insist that you deal with him yourself. His current suggested deletions and changes are nothing more than a ridiculous insult, and an attempt to undue what we spent countless hours creating. I am sure he will also eventualy edit war slowly over time to return the article to his preferred version anyway, removing tiny snippets at a time untill it's eventualy back to the way he wants it. Anyway, like I said, more of the same from malik, and at some point this has to be disruptive, as he is holding back the article's progress. I will take a break from editing the article until you decide what to do about malik, because I won't waste anymore time on something that may be deleted by him arbirtarilly, and I am not going to even attempt to mediate the differences, they are simply too great. — GabeMc (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey ProtonK, any suggestions on moving forward with the AMX article? — GabeMc (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you need some time to think about where to go with AMX that's all fine with me, take your time, I just want to finish what we started, as I have so many hours into this already. Please don't take this the wrong way, because I have greatly appreciated your input, your help and your direction, however, I will remind you that when you joined the discussion all I wanted was to include coauthor or collaborator in the lede, and ideally I wanted to delete the phrase "with the assistance of", based on consensus. Here is the suggestion I made to Malik on June 30. All I wanted to do was to restore Haley's authorial agency, arbitrarily deleted by Malik, and based on the preponderance of sources I had found. Haley had been credited as the author before Malik began minimizing him starting April 25, 2010.
 * Anyway, my point here is, what I wanted was very small, fast, and easy to effect. The only reason I spent another 6 weeks researching and editing was because you said we needed to describe their relationship in detail, so I did, the best I could, based on your specific examples, sources and instructions. Now I hope that after all that effort you are not bailing on the project. I apologize in advance if I have this wrong. — GabeMc (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was out of town over the past few days. I'll respond to this in a bit. Protonk (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for missing your comment, I was out of town (and I think you left a message right before someone else made a new section, so I just noted their question). I know this is frustrating, and I know you intended for this to be simple.  When I came and attempted to close the RfC I assumed it would be simple as well, with many editors, an obviously 'right' side and room for closure.  Obviously it was not.  My hope is that the GabeMc/AMX draft can progressively be merged into the mainspace article, as the competing draft hasn't seen much work.  Hopefully that will be done with the assent of Malik, who is still part of the discussion.  If we can't get him to agree on the basic thesis of your draft and he can't or won't generate a competing alternative which includes what we have (hopefully, more on this in a bit) learned in the RfC, then we will escalate this and change the content without his participation.  But only if he is intractable and we can't find the path to any compromise.  I'm not prepared to cut him out simply because he won't accept the changes you want to make.
 * More broadly, I'm dismayed to read comments like "he only reason I spent another 6 weeks researching and editing was because you said we needed to describe their relationship in detail, so I did, the best I could, based on your specific examples, sources and instructions." You aren't on assignment.  I hope that my discovery in the RfC isn't viewed as some pet theory of mine.  If you don't agree with the comments I made or with my interpretation of the sources, then you need to tell me.  You don't need to just do what I suggest because you think that I'm going to reward you.  I noticed the same tone in the comments on the draft article.  If you think what I'm saying is wrong, then say so.  It doesn't help the process (or your sanity) for you to just follow my suggestions on face. Protonk (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't view your discovery in the RfC as a pet theory of yours, I agree with you 100%, so do the scholars, as it is verified by the best sources available to us with striking consistency.
 * I agree with describing the relationship in detail, but I refuse to be left alone to defend the draft against Malik, he has wasted too much of my time and my good faith for him is all gone. I am also concerned that Malik will slowly edit the article back to his preferred version anyway, and I need some reassurance from you that you can help prevent that from happening.
 * Any tone you thought you may have picked up in the comments on the draft was inferred, not implied, I gladly followed your suggestions so the draft could be as collaborative as possible. I happily incorporated everything you suggested, and will continue to. Two heads are always better than one, I was not feeling snarky about it, trust me. I sincerely appreciated your help, still do.
 * As per Malik, and your comment, "I'm not prepared to cut him out simply because he won't accept the changes you want to make.". Again, my original suggestions were so miniscule as to beg for explanation why he even had the power to revert me. I was correct, he was not, I was not trying to make substantive changes to the article body, that was your idea, which I agreed with, obviously, because I have already made over 500 edits to the draft. I would not have put so much effort into the draft if I didn't agree with you, and the preponderance of sources.
 * In a nutshell, what I am trying to commuicate is this. I originally wanted to make a few minor changes in the article's verbiage, about 5-7 words difference, to restore Haley's agency as collaborator, Malik would not allow it, then the RfC, no editors agreed with Malik, a few agreed with me. Then you entered the discussion and told us you wanted a detailed analysis of the two mens's relationship, I agreed, and put forth great effort to implement your suggestions. Then I got the impression that it was my responsibility to defend your suggestions and to work in all of Malik's suggestions before checking back with you. Yes, I agreed with you, but you should be willing to defend the suggestions on your own. Compare Malik's suggestions to your own RfC comments, you will see how many of your ideas I included, and how many Malik wants to delete. To clarify, a significant portion of what Malik wants to delete is your content, or content that derived from your suggestions, the prose is not mine soley, not by any means.
 * Bottom line: I am asking you to get Malik to agree on the basic thesis of our draft, and please don't expect me to fight that battle with Malik, that's really all I want. If Malik's suggestions are to incorporated, I think you should be the one to do it, not me.
 * Comment - For the record I did make an effort to accomodate Malik's suggestions, several of them were quite good. But overall, his suggestions are an attempt to undue what we spent so many hours on. He spent 10 minutes making suggestions on our draft, 10 minutes! There are only 10 minutes between his first suggestion and his last. Look at the effort he put into his draft, similar.
 * Question - Why do we have to merge anything? IMO, the old draft should be replaced by the new one.
 * Suggestion - Pick one sticky suggestion from Malik, and see if you can get him to agree to one single contentious statement, try it, see if he will budge on one significant suggestion you made. — GabeMc (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I use the word 'merge' to mean WP:SMERGE, by and large. I think when the times comes to bring the new draft into article space we can bring over up to 100% of it.  My general comment about Malik is that it does appear he is being intransigent, but that making such a decision and acting on it is hard for me.  Admin or not, I've basically become the third person in this dispute.  At the very beginning I could have said (though I didn't think the debate up to that point warranted) that consensus was for including the verbiage about co-authorship and demanded it be included.  But once I attempted and failed to get consensus on a compromise (ish) viewpoint, I became more a participant than an observer.  As such, it is hard for me to issue ultimatums and the statement I made on your draft talk page is my strongest so far.  I really do believe that all parties need to be included and willing to bend.  If we give sufficient time and entre to Malik and he doesn't take advantage of it, then we can bring this debate to a close.
 * Alternately, if he does continue to debate the issue but refuses to compromise, we could just accept that this stage of DR has failed and ask for mediation. At which point the three of us would become parties and a mediator would make a decision or prompt a compromise.  I hope that won't be necessary because I really don't see how much of the content in the current draft can be baldly disputed, but it may be an outcome.
 * I know this is long and frustrating for you. I apologize that I wasn't able/willing to pull the trigger early and offer some finality to what you believed was to be a short discussion.  But the benefits of persistence will be our readers.  A stable revision with sound reasoning based on a strong process will persist longer and inform more people than an article either bereft of detail for fear of controversy or subject to periodic edit wars and tag fights. Protonk (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to include Malik as well, but are you prepared to attempt to compromise with him, and be responsible for his inclusion? — GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got his draft page, your draft and the article watchlisted. At this point I'm prepared to argue that silence implies consent.  If we don't see some movement on fleshing out his draft, working with you on your or working on the article talk page, then we can start closing the RfC.  I noticed an earlier revision included a comment about how mediation may be superfluous.  I'm less convinced of that, as there were basically two serious participants in the RfC; you and Malik.  Even if you include me as favoring one side, that's still 2:1 (more like 1.5:1), not really a ratio I'm comfortable with when it comes to dispensing with mediation.  That small ratio was primarily why I asked Dan to give some thoughts.  I may have a few other favors to call in to get some more opinions on the subject so we don't need to have it be me you and Malik fighting over the text. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about my comments on Gabe's draft and my markup of it at User:Malik Shabazz/Sandbox. I'm disappointed, Protonk, that you and Gabe have almost completely ignored my comments that Gabe's draft is repetitive and meandering. I'm especially disappointed, Protonk, that you haven't given Gabe the most basic advice of all: that he should try to communicate with me instead of ignoring me. At this point, I really don't give a damn whether Gabe's draft is moved into mainspace. Gabe is right: I will rewrite it so it's less repetitive and meandering, along the lines of the draft in my sandbox, with or without his cooperation. Feel free to continue to ignore me if you'd like, but I'm not going away any time soon. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Malik I'm really trying here. But to be fair to Gabe I didn't come into this dispute at the outset.  The RfC was a month old and mostly filled with acrimonious comments between the two of you.  And to go a bit further, you were being less open to compromise than he.  I attempted to change the discourse from a sort of fait acompli with regard to sourcing to a detailed examination of the content with limited success.  And frankly as the post-RfC discussion wore on, your comments comprised a smaller and smaller fraction of the discussion.  By the time Gabe introduced his draft, the discussion had effectively turned into a dialogue between him and me.  Once the draft was introduced, I hoped that it would spur productive commentary between you two.  Lastly, I expect that Gabe is exhausted, whether or not he has a right to be in your mind.  So while I would much prefer to not throw what limited weight I have around in favor of you two cooperating, I'm not sure that is in the cards.  So I'll reiterate.  Please add specific suggestions to his draft or construct your draft in your userspace.  When you both feel you are basically done adding to either drafts we can merge the two drafts and the current article and get something which we can all agree on.  That's the first best solution.  Pushing one version into article space over the objections of someone who has participated in good faith is nearly the least best.  But I will do that if this debate degenerates into a pissing contest. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Protonk, per Malik above, "Gabe is right: I will rewrite it so it's less repetitive and meandering, along the lines of the draft in my sandbox, with or without his cooperation." Is this how Wiki is supposed to work, and is Malik's comment appropriate for an admin? This is what people are talking about when they say Wiki is a waste of time. I want to finish my draft, but why would anyone put so many hours into an article that one person can delete without discussion? Would you, ProtonK spend hour after hour on something if I said I would just change it back when you finish? Why is Malik's behavior not deserving of sanctions? What if I said that to Malik? Do you think I would get blocked from editing AMX if I threatened to remove any content Malik adds? What I was the one refusing to compromise, for, going on nearly three months?
 * My original contention was that Haley was a coauthor and collaborator. Malik said Haley was a ghostwriter only, who assisted the true author of the book. Who was more correct, Malik, or GabeMc? Honestly, who's position was most accurate and who's position was least accurate? As far as I can tell, nearly every source which critically analyzes the book's authorship says the exact same thing in different terms. Marable, Wood, Wideman, Ramersad, Dyson, Stone, Andrews, and Terrill all detail a collaboration that at times crosses over into coauthorship, exactly as I originally thought. Actually, I have known Haley was a collaborator on AMX for over 20 years, since I first studied the book in school.
 * Protonk, I will ask you again, please, please answer this question, "Will you be 100% responsible for Malik's inclusion?" I suggest you attempt to find common ground with him yourself, then you should make suggestions to me on my draft based on what you two have agreed upon. — GabeMc (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your question means so I can't really answer it. I'm also not going to say "well Gabe was basically right about one component so he wins the RfC".  That's not how this works.  And yes.  It is frustrating as hell.  Article editing in the face of opposition is a pain in the ass.  the wiki model demands consensus because it technically allows for instant reversion, and consensus on difficult subjects is hard.  If there were more than just you, me, and Malik talking about this article at any length, this would be easier, but there weren't.  The RfC got some driveby comments but was generally not a very good discussion.
 * That's fine, take a neutral stance, but you know that one side is more verifiable than the other, and on Wiki verifiablility trumps even the truth itself. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate. Your draft is basically fine, but I want Malik to be included, should he be helpful and flexible.  I will not just declare a winner unless that is the last possible option.  I have already explained at length why I am uncomfortable doing so.  I'm happy to act as an intermediary but I have no clue what discussion needs to happen between the two of you because very little has been said on your draft or Malik's draft.
 * All I am asking is for you to spend your time attempting to compromise with Malik, somthing you have not yet done, unless I missed some discussion between you. Start by looking at his suggestions, and see if he will compromise on issues you disagree with him on, that's all I am asking, is for you to walk a mile in my shoes and then tell me that I was being acrimonious. Up to this point in time you have been giving me suggestions, and I have accepted every single one of them, and incorporated everything you suggested, see if Malik is as agreeable. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And I will. But like I said to Malik, it isn't like he has been active a lot on your draft, his draft or the talk page in the past 2 weeks.  If and when he becomes active again, I'll help work w/ him, but since the now primary AMX draft is yours, there is a limit to what I can do. Protonk (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If all that means you don't want to keep working, then fine. That's a shame, but it is your decision.  I implore you to wait for some feedback, and if we don't see some in a timely fashion (and threats to revert from either side don't count as feedback), we can start merging the drafts.  I'm deliberately leaving the timeline open because I hope to diffuse a little tension and allow things to move along at their own pace.

Protonk (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, I will finish this project. I was just hoping that before I put more time into it you would offer some protection for the article, if you truly think it is worthwhile. Many editors are banned from reverting articles because they casued to much disruption. Like I said, if I threatened to edit war Malik out of the article I would be banned from editing it, it's that simple. Why is there a double standard for Malik? I agree 100% with an open timeline, there is no hurry, let's get the article right, no matter how long it takes. I wish we could get more feedback from the Wiki community. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - Why don't you read Malik's suggestions and comments, and use them as the basis for a second set of suggestions on my AMX draft's discussion page. Keep in mind I have already worked in most of Malik's minor suggestions. I just havn't attempted to grapple with the mass deletions he is suggesting. — GabeMc (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S., I will make another good faith attempt to incorproate as many of Malik's suggestions as I can. — GabeMc (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Arb. Break
Which West source were you referring to? — GabeMc (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to get this finished, and could use another round of comments from you. — GabeMc (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe we have full agreement to close the RfC and to move the AMX draft into the article mainspace. Thanks so very much for your informed suggestions and patient hardwork. I learned a lot from you, and I will be a better editor moving forward because of you, so thanks for that. — GabeMc (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Will you please do the honor of moving the draft over? — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

AMX GAN
I am a little lost on what needs fixing at AMX. I am also very much burned out on reading the article. Do you understand specificaly what needs to be fixed so the article does not fail GAN in 4 days? Thanks Protonk. — GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The GAN is more a PR and prep for FAC than GA review. Stop fretting. Take a few days' break. I read your request to strikeout what has already been addressed, but like you, I have to take breaks too. I promise I'll come back to it in a couple days and read through it again. I can recite entire paragraphs in some of the articles I've written because I've read them so much. So, I feel you. --Moni3 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Moni3, you were great, I feel you on the breaks. — GabeMc (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@ProtonK, thanks for all your hard work on AMX. As you likely already know, I plagarised most of it from you, so thanks for the content and all the great suggestions. You should be proud, and, if I could give you a barnstar I would, but I assume only admins can give them, maybe I am wrong about that. Anyway, thanks again, your efforts really paid off. I am running it through a Peer Review before FAC, I hope you continue to edit, and improve the article as we move toward FAC, before Feb 21st hopefully. — GabeMc (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AMX Peer Review
I could use your help at the AMX peer review. — GabeMc (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: "is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months."

For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 16:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Editor creating multiple versions of the same article
Hi, bit of advice needed, what do you think is the best way to deal with an editor who creates multiple versions of the same article? keeps creating a (spammy) article over a range of different names. He doesn't respond to messages on his talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If those redirects stick this probably won't become a problem. I'll keep an eye on it and if he reverts the redirect we can try other options. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Left another note. He's not producing at a high enough rate to ratchet up a response immediately.  So we'll see what happens. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_15
I'd like to request that you reexamine your close of the Debrahlee Lorenzana DRV. Your close does not reflect the numerical consensus, nor the actual requirements of BLP1E, and I believe it should be vacated. I'll be happy to discuss the matter at more length, if you don't see my point after an initial self-review. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * what occasions the comment? That close was more than a month ago. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's another DRV where several people are using your close as justification for (in my opinion, of course) deleting notable content on her as a BLP violation, and assert that your close remains normative unless vacated, despite the fact that it's not numerically obvious. Jclemens (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Preemptive apologies for brevity.  I'm out of town and on a mobile device so I can't wikilink things or comment widely as effectively as I could were I home.  My first suggestion is that my close shouldn't be a guide for anything.  No AfD or DRV is binding (you know that of course).  Specifically you are correct that my close didn't reflect any overwhelming consensus.  It was not as through the deletion was challenged and the community responded 100-1 that it should  be endorsed.  That said, overwhelming consensus is not the standard for closing a DRV--by their nature most DRVs will be contentious discussions with strong arguments on either side.  I look at that DRV (my close) as about my threshold comfort level for a consensus.  Were it any other sort of deletion discussion, I probably would have closed it as no consensus, but DRV as a process requires some finality.  As for the underlying policy issue, I don't see the debate as ranging too far from BLP1E territory and I made the close despite my personal feelings about the policy (I feel that it, like NOT#NEWS, reflects a strong push from insiders against our great strengths).  I'm  happy to look over the close again on Monday afternoon when I return home and leave a comment on the new DRV.  In the meantime if you want to cross-post this exchange over there and emphasize again that DRVs aren't precedent, that would be fine. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, there's no deadline, and no good reason for you to torture yourself typing on a mobile device. If there's one gripe I have with the debate, its that it has been cast in BLP terms.  Lorenzana is not a low profile individual, having appeared on a Discovery Channel special years before the recent notoriety (commentary and full segment), doing a photo shoot for the Vanity Fair article that kicked this all off, and hiring Gloria Allred to be her lawyer .  Beyond that, the coverage has continued and stretched into meta-analysis (here, for example).
 * There's a place for BLP1E, and that's to protect people from unwillingly being thrust into the spotlight. And there's clearly a purpose for excluding non-notable people who don't mind their 15 minutes of fame--that would be BIO1E, which is a notability guideline, not a BLP policy component.  If you could see your way to even change your close justification from WP:BLP1E to WP:BIO1E, then I can debate the notability based on secondary sources.  As is, the BLP1E has a chilling effect on debate, in that I'm unwilling to recreate the article when admins have opined that re-creating the article at all is a BLP issue that should lead to some sort of sanctions. I'd really be happy if we can take it out of the BLP realm and into a notability debate. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason I thought that people were using my close as precedent on DRVs for different articles, not a third DRV on the same article. In that case my close actually does have some bearing (informative, mostly) on discussion of the article.  As for the BO1E/BLP1E, I'm sympathetic to your case as I think the three letter acronym "BLP" causes people to lose their minds, but the difference comes down to what a private individual means and what level of attention seeking constitutes willingly entering the public sphere.  So it isn't so obviously not a BLP1E as you suggest here and on the third DRV.  I should say right out the gate that I don't intent to vacate my DRV decision in the midst of another DRV on the same article.  That said, the AfD the first DRV and my decision were all determined narrowly on the interpretation of BLP1E to the article.  If you can convince editors in the 3rd DRV that these interpretations were erroneous, then I don't see why a new article couldn't be created.  But I'm not completely convinced any of the decisions were well outside the discretion of the closing admin. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the current DRV is technically on another, "independent" article on the same subject, same notability, using new RS'es. There's an entirely other argument, that G4 doesn't apply, that is also being ignored because of the "BLP!" boogeyman.  I'd appreciate if you would weigh in on the current DRV... Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a comment on the new DRV. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Harsh Jain
Take a look at the actions of the brand-spanking-new (and already blocked) User:East India Co. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Inflation
In one of my FACs, Featured article candidates/Rivadavia class battleship/archive1, Jayjg is asking for us to consider inflation rather than measuringworth.com. In your economical opinion, do you prefer some template or website for present worth calculations, and why? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Left a brief comment there. I don't run into the need to convert to real dollars too often, but measuringworth is the first place I look for simple answers in that area.  Notably the template cites measuringworth for UK values. :) Protonk (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please
The record shows you deleted the article on the charity Skate4Cancer, as an A7.

I request you tell me who nominated the article for deletion -- as they chose not to follow the recommendations in our deletion policies and inform the article starter (me) of the nomination.

Nominators who don't follow the recommendations of our deletion policies concern me. I like to encourage them to comply with those recommendations. In my opinion, the choice not to do so erodes the atmosphere of good faith we are all supposed to aim for. Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * it was User:Jezhotwells. Note please that the nomination and deletion occurred more then a year ago feedback may not be all that helpful 12 months hence.  Also note that the direction to notify involved editors is guidance (not policy) for a reason.  There is not a strong consensus that notification be mandatory, though notification is automated using tools like twinkle or huggle. Protonk (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is odd, I created a stub on this topic less than 2 weeks ago... Geo Swan (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Recall
Regarding your comments at the BLPN which imo show little regard for our BLP policy are you open to recall I would like to request your recall. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't remember saying I was open to recall. You are welcome to request that I be desysopped involuntarily for having an opinion.  Let me know how that goes. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Human Molecule
You pay a lot more attention to REFUND and incubator than I do, and I probably shouldn't fiddle with Article Incubator/Human molecule, anyway. It's tagged as needing deletion, and I concur.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the incubator, but I'll take a look. Protonk (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mind if I wait until that ban discussion of SC is over? Doesn't seem like much threat it will move into the mainspace in the meantime. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in no rush, just wanted to be certain that someone besides me noticed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback @ Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
Sorry, I figured because of the warnings, and even if it was test edits, it was vandles. Thank you for your clarification. Wolfnix •  Talk  • 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot is editing logged out again
Now that the block you put in place has expired, and several days have passed, is again editing as a logged out version of AlexNewArtBot. Maybe a longer block and warning to the operator that if it edits logged out again, the bot account will be blocked too? &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

8 Queens
Hello Protonk, please tell me why the immediate deletion of External link addition to "Eight Queens Puzzle" page pointing to http://www.ronybc.com/n-queen.php. Being the author of the page, I'm utterly disheartened by the action. Please let me know if there is something wrong so that I may correct it or to abandon it with knowing the reason.
 * Hi. Generally on wikipedia we frown on website operators adding links to their own sites into our articles, regardless of how germane the site may be.  You are welcome to make a post on the talk page of the article and see if other interested editors feel that the site would be an important addition to the external link section.  Alternately you can edit or improve the main article itself since you are knowledgable on the subject.  But we are cautious about potential conflicts of interest. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I got the point, Wikipedia should not be Linkipedia :) And I will sure be with the article in the future and will do improve it if i could.

softblocked IP
What good does blocking the bot do? Blocking it just prevents it doing what it should do. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot isn't supposed to operate while logged out. If it isn't stopped by the operator or programmed to stop itself when it is logged out, then the only way to prevent it from doing so is to block the IP.  The moment the operator logs the bot back in the block will be meaningless (as it is a softblock on a relatively static IP). Protonk (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the view of the bot owner (See here). Shouldn't the owner be informed of the block? Especially given that (s)he is seen so rarely on the bot page. Regards, SunCreator (talk)
 * You can leave a post on their talk page if you like. IMO it is the responsibility of the bot operator to pay attention to the bot.  And regardless of the opinions of the bot operator, the bot policy is pretty clear about logged out bots. Protonk (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Per bot policy, If you have noticed a problem with a bot, or have a complaint or suggestion to make, you should contact the bot operator. I don't see you have done this. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I did. I left a comment on the talk page for the bot noting that I blocked an IP address the bot was using while logged out.  If the bot operator doesnt check the talk page of the bot frequently enough to respond to comment there, the talk page should be redirected tomtheir suer talk page (or some altenate page the user will check).  Either way, the bot should not be editing while logged out and preventing it from doing somas both normal and preferable to waiting for a response from a bot operator who may be at work, on vacation or otherwise away from wikipedia for a period of time.  This also isn't the first time the bot has edited while logged out, previous attempts to correct this by asking the bot op have been unsuccessful.  Remember that bot accounts aren't user accounts.  For suers, blocking is a last resort in order to deal with otherwise intractable problems or to forestall impending disruptions.  For bots there is no stigma associated with a block and the volume of edits dictates that blocking be proactive. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

40K articles
Now that it looks like the 40K project is defunct, I've finally gone ahead and made the big push towards rebooting our 40K coverage by nuking the in-universe material from the faction articles (and redirecting their sub-pages). I've left a note on the project talk. Still a long way to go before our coverage is good, but we're no longer a Lexicanum mirror. Just a heads-up, seeing as you were the saint who got the main 40K article to GA (thus ensuring that we had at least one non-bad article on the topic). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got some stuff on my plate, but when I get back monday I'll try and give a basic roadmap of which articles the 40k project still needs (defunct or not, the project serves as a great navigational aide on the backend). My guess is <20. Protonk (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2
Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7, you may be interested in Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dnfcc
Hey Stifle. You mind if I delete or redirect Dnfcc? It doesn't seem to be used and currently doesn't have much linking to it. I found it looking at backlinks to Category:Disputed non-free images. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if you didn't. It's got a long history and is used as a more forceful alternative to {{subst:dfu}}. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * no problem. I'll just change the pointer from DNFI to DNFF.  Protonk (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user without block tag on page
I was just cleaning up my watchlist, and came across a user I had watchlisted from quite a while ago, User:Shininghui. On 7 August 2010, you blocked his/her account for the reason "Spam / advertising-only account", as can be seen on the user's contribution page. For some reason, though, the user's talk page doesn't have an indefinitely blocked tag on it. Is that an error, or am I missing something? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't missing anything, I just don't always leave block messages for obvious indefs (like spamming or VOA) and I almost never tag the user page of indeffed accounts. Protonk (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U 3
Hi there,

I found your input on his second RFC/U particularly useful. I'm inviting you, if you wish, to comment on his current RFC/U. BOZ (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly articles behind paywalls
In the talk page of 2004 United States election voting controversies you offered to get copies of various peer reviewed literature that might help expand the coverage of the exit polling section. I would like copies of those if I can trouble you for them. Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Shoot me an email w/ the titles. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not seeing your email address anywhere, am I looking in the wrong place? Bonewah (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just click "email this user" or my email address is my wp username at gmail.com Protonk (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

you asked why bonewah should recuse himself, now the review is closed, the answer here
since the review is closed i can't respond there. so your answer is here. he should recuse himself because he was actively involved. if i were an administrator i would have recused myself on account of having been actively involved, even though any honest witness will tell you i was not nearly as disruptive as bonewah. (clearly we hold ourselves to different standards.) in fact he was was quite the pov-pusher and blanked a lot of content without discussion. he can not be trusted to give an objective analysis. that's where the whole idea of "recusal" comes from. that's why they do it in courts and that's why they do it in juries. (though the process is different - the judges and attorneys dismiss the potential jurors rather than them dismissing themselves.) it's a very important part of any system of justice or review. so if you want to argue it's prudence or applicability, good luck with that. Kevin Baastalk 14:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * in fact, he even edited the article during the review: . (note that he and others have been told multiple times that the NEP report is not even a valid scientific review as they did not disclose any of their data or methods (in fact they have refuse multiple queries).) Kevin Baastalk 14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A few things. Bonewah has every right to participate in a discussion.  Other editors may argue he is making a rhetorical case rather than a dispassionate analysis, but the latter is not a prerequisite for participation.  If an editor is vested somehow in the outcome of a discussion, they may still participate, with or without a disclaimer (though we recommend that editors note any conflicts of interest).  your analogy to judicial review runs aground on a few points.  First, wikipedia isn't a court of law or a mock trial proceeding.  the rather stringent standards of judicial recusal which exist in certain jurisdictions do not exist on wikipedia.  Second, recusal is primarily an issue for those people who have a deciding role.  A defense attorney is certainly strongly incentivised to ensure her client wins--as surely as a prosecuting attorney for the state is incentivised to ensure conviction.  The actors a western judicial system expects to be impartial are those who determine the outcome decisively.  In the case of a deletion discussion all we are attempting to do is collect the opinions of editors (vested and not) on the disposition of an article.  Applying some imaginary recusal process to participants is not part of that process. Protonk (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * first half good, second half not so much. true, both defense and prosecuting attornies are incentivized.  however, jury selection and judge recusal are not designed to benefit either or both of them.  they are designed to ensure objectivity and disinterestedness, two factors that are crucial in making a decision.  Which is, in fact, what you are trying to do.  if you "all we are attempting to do is collect the opinions of editors (vested and not) on the disposition of an article", then the whole process would be quite pointless, now wouldn't it?  (we shall collect opinions, then we shall file them away and do nothing!)  no, it is to make a decision.  and that is where recusal comes in.  whether or not it is officially part of any process or not, it results in a better decision.  people who are principaled and interested in having the best decision be made, even if it is not in their own "interests" or what their own opinion is of other people's interests, respect that.  clearly, not everyone is that moral.  most acutely, your argument is fatally flawed on the obviously false premise that no decision can possibly result from the review.  and more so as well, on other false premises such as the neccessity of a formal obligatory process for actions to be judged.  (i.e. kohlberg's 3/4 stages of moral development, as opposed to 5/6) (clearly, their practical consequences when used universally as a matter of principal is something to consider)  Kevin Baastalk 20:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are describing your view of how consensus discussions should work on wikipedia, not how they actually work. Even so, in doing so you have again skipped over the point. Bonewah wasn't "making a decision". He was participating in a discussion. the closing admin made a decision based on that discussion. Recusal standards for closing admins are a subject of discussion, but we aren't discussing the closing admin, we are discussing participants to a discussion. And your standard draws a wide enough net to catch you. If bonewah cannot offer an opinion than certainly neither can you (as you are obviously operating from a particular viewpoint given that you started the review). I can't make heads or tails of your bit about how/why my argument is fatally flawed, so I wont comment. If you really think the participation of a vested party spoiled the discussion then you need to take that concern up with the closing admin. Protonk (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are again missing the point. Obstinately, it seems.  Actively; intentionally.  Why do I even bother?  You're not even listening.  You don't even care.  I'm done.  Goodbye.  Kevin Baastalk 23:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And you don't need to make heads/tail of how your argument is fatally flawed because i just told you. there's no thinking involved! yeesh.  and now you're levied a whole new set of logical errors to correct.  i didn't realize this discussion was going to move so slowly.  take a critical thinking course or something.  i don't have time for this.  Kevin Baastalk 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What a pleasant reply. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
The barnstar was unexpected. Thank you very much. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Brothers Fine Art Restoration

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Brothers_Fine_Art_Restoration


 * Oliver Brothers Website

I have contacted some credible institutions: American Institute of Conservators, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library (Harvard Library), The Greek Institute of Cambridge, asking for their help in editing the article’s mid 20th Century history. I am hoping they will have additional records in their archives, and would improve the article themselves. It is very hard (or impossible)to find any sources to edit 19th Century history and all we can go by are well documented records from NY Historical Society and The Smithsonian. All the references and external links listed in the article are about people who are no longer with us. Article does not mention any work done by current owners, neither does it glorify previous owners. I do understand that Wikipedia is strict about self promotion and would like to maintain neutrality and objectivity, and therefore the article is not written as an advertizing. I have many sources which can contribute towards past 40 years of company’s history, and if you think this could help I would be happy to contact them. Being a small niche business for 160 years is a great success, challenge and disadvantage compared with many large companies listed in Wikipedia. Is there anyone in Wikipedia who can help us with editing? Could you please reconsider your decision? Thank you so much! Mbboston (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the first step is to find sources on the subject which meet our guidelines for reliability and independence.
 * The above links may help. The second step is a stylistic one.  Most wikipedia articles on corporations (or the best articles, see FA) follow a common format.  The relevant facts on the organization are shown, and care is taken to provide the reader with context.  Is the organization important for some reason within its field?  Without?  Are there notable controversies involving the organization in the past?  Is there any scholarship on the organization itself?  The history and ownership of the corporation are somewhat secondary.  They are important, but focusing on those elements makes the article look more like an entry in a business directory than a general encyclopedia article.
 * Accomplishing these two steps may involve first shortening the article to a stub (not a pejorative term) and then building it up using the sources you find. I hope that helps a bit. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above links may help. The second step is a stylistic one.  Most wikipedia articles on corporations (or the best articles, see FA) follow a common format.  The relevant facts on the organization are shown, and care is taken to provide the reader with context.  Is the organization important for some reason within its field?  Without?  Are there notable controversies involving the organization in the past?  Is there any scholarship on the organization itself?  The history and ownership of the corporation are somewhat secondary.  They are important, but focusing on those elements makes the article look more like an entry in a business directory than a general encyclopedia article.
 * Accomplishing these two steps may involve first shortening the article to a stub (not a pejorative term) and then building it up using the sources you find. I hope that helps a bit. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your suggestions. We will continue with our revisions as recommended by you.
 * Mbboston (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Oliver Brothers Wiki page has been re- written. Could you please take a look and let me know if the banner could be removed. Thanks! Mbboston (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it this weekend. Sorry I've been busy. Protonk (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've taken a quick look at it. My suggestion is that you go through the article and remove content which would be more appropriate for a brochure.  Imagine that you have only secondary sources to go on in describing the business and see what you come up with.  Remember that what is important for the article is not necessarily what is important to the business.  We don't need a complete chain of ownership, just a short history.  I know this seems harsh, but encyclopedia articles which appear to be promotional about small businesses tend to be looked down upon.  Let me know if you need any more help. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC
I know you are busy, but we could use your insights at the Roger Waters FAC discussion. — GabeMc (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, but I know nothing about music. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what makes you an unbiased editor. Also, there is a Pink Floyd GAR in which we could use some fresh, unbiased insights. — GabeMc (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

IR393
Hi there my name is Mike and I am enrolled in the IR393 class you are listed under and I was hoping to add you as my mentor for the class. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IR393TheSituation (talk • contribs)

I'd be happy too, Mike. You can talk to me here or email me by clicking "email this user". What subject are you working on? Protonk (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment
Hello, Protonk. I found you listed as a GA mentor and would like to request your opinion on a reassessment. Reading through Salem witch trials (GA, January 2008), I believe it no longer meets the GA criteria, particularly in its writing tone and lack of references/original research. I have only assessed one GA and have very little experience in writing them, and so want a second opinion on whether it needs reassessing. I am perfectly willing to do the reassessment if you agree that one is necessary. Thanks for your time, PrincessofLlyr  royal court 20:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should point out at the outset that I have higher standards for GA status than the average reviewer. My very brief first pass of the article leads me to the conclusion that I would not pass the article without revisions (but I would not fail it outright).  As such my first suggestion is not to re-evaluate it but to attempt to edit the article and adjust the tone/style issues yourself.  If you aren't comfortable with that or you don't feel a cursory rewrite would be enough you could write up your comments on an individual reassessment page.  I will take a more detailed look at the article in the next few days. Protonk (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the problems I see are verifiability issues and I don't really have time or resources to properly research them and sort out the truth, so my preference would be an individual reassessment placed on hold for response from the related projects/editors. I just wanted to check first and make sure I wasn't being overly picky. Thank you for your quick and thoughtful response. PrincessofLlyr  royal court 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have completed an individual review here. Thanks again for your help!  PrincessofLlyr  royal court 21:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Protonk! You offered once to do this reassessment and at the time I chose to do it, mostly for the experience. Several real-life issues have since come up and, quite honestly, I don't have enough time to devote to properly seeing this through. This is probably completely unheard of, but would it be possible for you to finish the assessment? I really would like to see the article improved back to GA quality, but no longer believe I have the time or expertise to guide that progress. PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can leave a detailed comment there next week. I will say that in reality, articles don't improve without at least one person seriously devoted to improving them.  So if you are hoping to spur an improvement by noting deficiencies without some major contributor being active on the page, you might be unhappy with the results (this is what caused the rule change at FAC allowing only major contributors to candidate articles to nominate them). Protonk (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. When I began, there appeared to be several active contributors, but interest doesn't seem very high in fixing things. If nothing else, I may try to work on it very slowly myself. PrincessofLlyr  royal court 18:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

uw-sand
Hiya,

I've noticed your very well-thought-out comments, in Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace - of course, it's quite clear to almost anyone, the warning is utterly unnecessary. Common sense tells us that.

I imagine you've seen, in the TFD and on that page, that I have also tried to apply logic, reason, explanation, but to no avail - and, as I stated there, I gave up. Simply...I tried hard to get some rationality, but Bsherr is wiki-lawyering, and ignoring the bigger picture.

I've faced the same problem trying to discuss with the same user when, recently, they insisted a) it was valid to place a fourth warning on a brand-new users talk page within a 67-second interval, b) when I asked them to please use edit summaries and they flat-out refuse, and c) where they insist a 4im is appropriate for a single, non-dramatic IP edit.

It's very rare I simply give up, when something is so patently obvious, but in this case (the uw-sandbox) I have tried my very best to explain common-sense, and sadly failed. I see you are pursing things, so I definitely wish you the best of luck. I had to step away, to preserve sanity; I'm amazed anyone would even think the warning is needed.  Chzz  ► 03:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to tell you. It looks like (Not just assuming) he means well and sometimes a push for strong logical consistency is good on project pages, but it does make it hard to talk on the same level. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've tried to explain what, yes, there is no rule about warning users for it, or not warning them for it; neither is there a rule that prohibits editing on Thursdays unless you put a teapot on your head. The fact that the headers is auto-replaced in minutes, it does no harm, its bitey, and so on...well. Anyway. As I say, I give in, with that battle, but I'll watch from the side-lines, and I do wish you all the best. Failing that, I'll wait a year or two, then suggest removal again.  Chzz  ► 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Autobiography of Malcolm X
Heya. Started GA review. Waiting for a response. Watching review page. Writing short sentences... --Moni3 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moni. You're the best. Also short sentences. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured_article_candidates/ARA_Moreno/archive1
Imposing again ... the only objection we have involves economics, and I'm not following. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks kindly. You just got a, um, forceful response. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw it. :) I'll make a response later. Protonk (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a general piece of advice. If you are working on ships built outside of the US or GBP (or any country where we can find a simple inflation converter), just state the nominal price in the local currency in the body text and make a parenthetical note giving the current price in USD.  Stating prices in current dollars is normally a large benefit for the reader, as most people both measure and correct for inflation incorrectly (either by assuming too much inflation or not correcting at all).  Giving a current dollar amount is better than saying that the USS Really Expensive cost 500,000 1928 dollars.  However for ships built or sold in other countries, you are going to continue to get dinged at FAC over listing the price in a current dollar amount--rightly or wrongly. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Muchas gracias. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

wiki page
Dear Adam, I was wondering if you could give me some advice on my wiki page. I am currently struggling to decide whether I should limit my page to focus solely on History of Arab Christian Immigration/Communities in the United States or make it more broad and title it the History of Arab Immigration to the United States  in general. There is a need for both pages, I am just not sure if a page on Arab Immigration to the US is simply too broad of a topic. please be in touch, my email is. I look forward to talking with you. Regards, 68.199.132.105 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Matt Collins
 * Sure thing, Matt. I'll shoot you an email later today. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentor inquiry
Good day,

My name is Farleyeye and I am working on the Public Policy Initiative at Indiana University. I'm new to Wikipedia, and would love to have someone assist me when times get tough. Are you interested?

I look forward to having you as a mentor, if you are so inclined.

Thanks,

Farleyeye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farleyeye (talk • contribs)

Mentor
Hey, I'd like to add you as my mentor. I am working on a Wikipedia project for a graduate economic development class and could use some help with Wiki edits. Thanks! EromiralT (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentor
I am a student at Indiana University and would like to be your mentee.

Btearney (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

AMX

 * Thanks Malik. I'm glad I could provide what little help I did.  You guys did an amazing job.  Hopefully TFA by Feb 21. Protonk (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Protonk, I thought your summary of the authorship question was brilliant. Thank you for the extensive personal investment. Binksternet (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm excited it worked as well as it did, but I think the bulk of congratulations should go to Gabe and Malik. Protonk (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How's your Online Ambassador experience going so far?
Hi ,

We're starting to get into the busy part of the semester for Online Ambassadors, and we want to check in and see how you're doing, what your opinions about where we are now, and any feedback you may have.

Please answer these questions either on my talk page or send them to me by email.

1. How many mentees are you currently working with?

2. Have you reached out to students who don't have mentors yet? If not, would you be willing to?

3. What do you think of the content of messages on the Google Group?

4. What do you think of the volume of messages on the Google Group?

5. Do you participate on the Google Group much? If not, what would make you participate more?

6. Are there any problems you've experienced so far?

7. Is there anything else Sage or the rest of the Public Policy Initiative team could do to make your experience as an Online Ambassador better?

8. Are you okay sharing your username with your answers to our Public Policy Initiative team, or would you prefer to remain anonymous?

Thanks for your feedback! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wowpedia articles
I noticed you declined the speedy at WoWPedia; at the very least, that one should be a redirect to the correct capitalization at Wowpedia (which is also a duplicate). However, regardless of where it's written, I don't see how it survives speedy at this stage, as the article seems highly premature. There are no reliable sources that I could find, and the article at this stage seems to be advertising for the project fork. I was thinking of submitting an AfD now, but wanted to first discuss with you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD is fine, much better than CSD. My preference would be to work out the sourcing/CRYSTAL issues via merging and redirecting, not deletion, because it is clear that the people behind wowwiki are moving to the new site. Protonk (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure
You are invited to participate in the Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

tooholli
Hi! I sent you an email reference asking you to be my mentor...pretty please? I'm involved with wikiproject United States Public Policy. Thanks! Tooholli (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Terry Heaton
Did you miss the part about how it had already been restored and userfied back on the 25th? Or am I missing something? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  04:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed it to, though i did know he left a message for the deleting admin before the 25th (I think I fixed the formatting). Protonk (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
Are you aware of Topic ban? I wonder whether it would benefit from a section on effectiveness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that page specifically. I'm not sure if it would benefit from a section on effectiveness.  Rather, I wish we wouldn't use them at all.  We tend to issue topic bans along a spectrum with two possible poles.  On one end are the editors who edit exclusively and disruptively on a specific topic and show no interest in other subjects.  On the other end are editors who contribute productively to a variety of subjects but have problems in a particular area or with a particular editor.  In the former case a topic ban is a de facto ban.  If an editor only edits articles about Obama and does so tendentiously, banning them from editing articles on Obama is in effect a site ban unless we subscribe to the somewhat irrational position that a topic ban will rehabilitate a user.  The latter case is tougher but offers no better support for a topic ban.  In those cases, we hope to refocus an editor on to productive topics by prohibiting them from editing in areas where they have been unproductive.  What happens in those cases (and in the cases of single issue editors) is that the topic ban rankles (as perhaps it should), they nibble at the margins of the ban, provoke meta-discussion of the ban and generally make nuisances of themselves.  Look no further than the recent arbcom: CC, Speed of Light, and other topic ban results for a bounty of examples.  The problem is that unlike a block, maintenance of a topic ban is labor and time intensive.  If I topic ban you from editing articles about breadfruit, I have to pay attention to your contributions and make sure you don't edit the area or related areas.  Where if I block you, all I have to do is watch out for block evasion.  Related to this is the problem of who enforces topic bans.  Since enforcement is costly, enforcers self select.  Often you will find "minders" (I prefer busy-bodies) who watch over editors and wait for them to violate the topic ban.  those self selected monitors will tend to be over-zealous, politically motivated and generally uninterested in rehabilitating users subject to the incredible stricture that a topic ban represents.  We have this ingrained notion that some hierarchy exists within admin/community responses with respect to severity.  Warnings being at the bottom, then topic bans, then blocks, then a community ban.  This taxonomy bears little resemblance to the actual cost of applying these remedies (if they are to be called remedies).  Topic bans are viewed with great suspicion because they lie in the middle of this hierarchy--a man without a country.  A community ban is normally applied to an editor who basically deserves it.  And a warning is often pretty innocuous.  But imposing a topic ban is something like placing someone on the "no fly list".  Someone who is so dangerous they must be prevented from editing a specific set of articles, but is not dangerous enough as to require a physical restraint against editing.  This indeterminacy robs the topic ban of its force as a social norm, which is problematic because the only thing providing force to the topic ban are the social norms!  This is part of the reason you see so much sturm and drang about topic bans, well outsized in comparison to the actual impact of the ban itself.  And the scope of the topic bans themselves leaves incredible room for interpretation, and the wikipedia community loves nothing more than to split hairs and wikilawyer.  So we have these mechanisms, which we cannot specify plainly (because the basic nature of a topic ban does not allow plain specification), which have reduced social force, and which have little to no actual positive impact.  Why bother using them at all? Protonk (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

thank you (redirects)
Thank you, but as this seems to be an ongoing problem I want a record of who's doing what on redirects. I'm also quite unhappy that Balloonman has retired, as he was going to hold a full discussion on these politician articles. Not a good day. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being snippy. I'll say generally that admins get into the habit of deleting history from redirected articles because those redirects tend to find themselves being reversed.  After a few months of AfD closures, you would have hundreds or thousands of redirects to watch for some random editor or IP to undo the AfD.  Also, Courcelles may have decided that two delete votes + the nominator versus two redirect votes meant that redirecting and deleting was fine.  Either way, the easiest way to deal with this is always to talk to the deleting admin directly. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Diplomacy
That was very nice work; you did a good job of calming down both of us. Could I interest you in another assignment? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Provisionally. I promise not to drop an f-bomb immediately upon meeting the folks involved.  You can tell me about it here or via email and I'll let you know whether or not I can help. Protonk (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep things public, and appreciate your help. I had to open an RFC on an admin, and it serves no one for that to continue to be open, stalled, no feedback from the admin beyond one post, which didn't satisfactorily resolve the situation.  The best outcome would be for him to acknowledge that he understands now how to use the tool, so that the RFC can be resolved per Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing (not dragging on per 1, or escalating to 2, rather closing per 3).  But nine admins so far haven't gotten anywhere in trying to talk with him-- perhaps he felt backed into a corner, and a new person could talk to him and help us towards a better outcome?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can take a look, but user conduct RfCs are deep in the tunnel. Sometimes it is hard to see the light from that far in. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know-- it's part of the whole "DR is broken thing". Most people weighing in were part of the original issue, a few new issues surfaced (pile on against him), and people with known conflicts with me piled on on that side-- typical RFC, little outside input, the usual axe-grinding, and me being called "petty" even though a former arb encouraged me to open an RFC as the best way to get it solved.  But what I'm suggesting is you try to talk with him outside of the RFC, make sure he understands the tool he used, what was wrong with his approach, get it wrapped up so it doesn't drag on for the full 30 days or have to move to other DR, since they're ALL broken !  Would that make sense?  I just can't understand why he wouldn't listen to the admins so far who have told him he goofed-- it's still not clear he understands he did, and most editors aren't as tough as I am when it comes to being on the wrong end of the misuse of tools, so it's important he not do that to someone else.  It was also a pretty nasty way to treat me after I made a good faith editing mistake due to ... ummmm ... IRL issues.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * the nice thing about having a little (not a lot) of experience in different spheres of the world is that you realize DR is broken in a lot of places. I'll take a look at it. Protonk (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Fast inverse square root
Hi! Today I edited the 'Fast inverse square root' article, and noticed that you changed it back. The code as is presented now is a normal first order approximation that completely ignores the (zeroth order) approximation where this article is all about (and uses a very silly zeroth order approximation instead). The code I inserted was the original code as present in the sourcecode of Quake 3. Can we change it back?

Geert
 * I see this in q_math.c on my copy of the source code. You can replace that in the article apologies for not double checking the q3 source myself but seeing the commented line "what the fuck" added by an IP editor raised some suspicions.  Sorry.  Protonk (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

GAN Second Opinion
Hello there. I noticed that of the people listed at Good article nominations/Mentors, you are one of only two people that explicitly say that you do second opinions, the other being Ericleb01. Can you please take a look at my first GAN review, Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute/GA1 and do a second review of it. I'd also appreciate any feedback you are willing to give me. Sven Manguard Talk  19:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I will leave a brief comment tonight. Protonk (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Online Ambassador selection process
Please share you views on the current version of the proposed Online Ambassador selection process, which the steering committee has recommended for adoption by the ambassadors program. Once we settle on a selection process, we can start recruiting more Online Ambassadors for next term (in which we will have more students, and the students will be more involved with mentors from early on).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page -- I'd like to view it.
I would like to revive the Kentucky Mountain Holiness Association article. I've spent some time today revamping and sourcing articles. Can I see the original page?

Thanks!! Jsharpminor (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. There was only one edit, which contained the text " Kentucky Mountain Holiness Assocation ".  That was all. Protonk (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Planning for next term in the Wikipedia Ambassador Program
Hi Adam. We're trying to figure out how many students we can mentor next term and how many additional Online Ambassadors will be needed. Based on the revised plan for what participating courses will be like next term, I've sketched out what will be expected of mentors. Please look that over, and then go to the online ambassadors talk page to indicate much mentoring and other ambassador activities you'd like to do next term. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Larmenius Charter
Where was the prod contested? MSJapan (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * n/m, I see. However, the prod was contested after it expired, and the protest was lodged by an IP with no other edits.  How does an IP claim "censorship" and "no replacement with other material" when the entire article was unsourced in the first place, sources support the statement I made regarding its status as a forgery, and the rest of the argument makes no sense?  In short, what line of reasoning led you to restore the article? It looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. MSJapan (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My line of reasoning was that any remotely good faith objection to a PROD means the prod gets reversed. It is right there in the deletion policy and it is that feature which allows us to use PROD so widely.  I don't object to the article going to AfD. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies is now a Feature article nominee
Hi! Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies has been nominated as possible Featured article. She was an Italian princess and the wife of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. If're interested on reviewing and voting in favor or not of it, please go to Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello! It's just an invitation. In case you were interested in the subject, you could takea look and vote in favor or not of it in FAC nomination. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I just didn't want to ignore it on the basis that I had not worked on the article and find out that I had but did not recall. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:inflation
At WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kenilworth Castle, Hchc (in the last comment) says that we shouldn't use the inflation template for "big projects", which would cover pretty much all of the articles I copyedit, I guess. It's over my head; do you have a position? (P.S. Skimming your talk page ... great work, as always.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comments above on topic bans make a lot of sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Let me wander over there and make a comment. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Made a hash of the comments there. I think what is needed is some sensible practice for the inflation template.  We have to recognize that displaying nominal pricing is bad (m'kay?) because readers instinctively anchor to given prices and are really bad at computing inflation over time (even trained readers).  Likewise we need to understand that we aren't scholars setting out to give a precise valuation of a good and we don't have the expertise to give confidence intervals (per se) to our estimates of inflation.  We just do not have enough information to give a defensible range of real prices.  And Those two problems need to be balanced against each other.  We tend to mess up that balance (see the Argentine battleship FA discussion above) because we view the former as a sin of omission and the latter as a sin of commission.  But the end-state is the same.  A reader generates the wrong idea about a subject because of a choice we made.  So the best answer is to use inflation templates where conversion is sensible and possible.  Anything back to 1900 is indisputably fair game.  Further than that will require some digging.  A castle in 1400 is probably a bit too far!  But the nice thing about distant history is that the reader isn't misleading themselves as avidly.  Unlike an article on a car from 1965 made in the US, where we can fully expect readers to be computing real value in their heads, no one is trying to figure out what 1,100 pounds in 1400 means today.  So the danger of listing nominal price is low and the ability to give a simple real price (without OR) is low as well.  That's a case where we should shy away from adjusting figures.  Edge cases are usually easy.  The tough ones will remain even if someone writes a carefully worded guideline about how to deal with Inflation. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have given some thoughts on the Kenilworth assessment page. I'd agree about the utility of a wider piece of guidance on inflation, incidentally. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * M'kay! I inserted a permalink to your discussion of the other discussion in the middle of your comments ... confused yet? - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I often forget that this talk page is open to everyone and not just a conversation between two people who might know the exact battleship in question! Protonk (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Smile for the cameras. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Labels
I'm a rookie, so I'm only guessing this is the platform for my query. The cloropleth map (which is very cool by the way!) that appears in Letterboxing contains a statment that it represents 'all' the traditional letterboxes in the US. I think it would be appropriate to rephrase that bit since the source for the map doesn't provide a totality of information.Luxem Via (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a very good idea. I think I did that on the image description page but I should really update the caption.  I'm in talks with the AQ guy to get access to an anonymized dump of their dB so hopefully I can get a more complete sample! Protonk (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fast inverse square root, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Rich wales (talk · contribs) 08:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the above was not vandalism after all, and I withdraw my comment to that effect. Sorry for jumping the gun. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)