User talk:Protonk/Archive 12

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 15:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Fast inverse square root (again)
Hi. I fell into the trap of assuming the comment in the source code at Fast inverse square root was vandalism. Sorry about that; my inadvertent damage has already been undone.

I do think it's reasonable to ask, however, whether it is truly necessary or appropriate to quote the comment in question. I do realize it's an exact quote from a source, but it doesn't add anything at all (other than debatable shock value) to the reader's understanding of the issue at hand. If the comment had included an ethnic slur instead of a sexual reference, would we still feel obligated to quote it as an exact part of the original source code? If someone were to decide to replace this primary source quote with a secondary source illustrating the same code (but with the word in question censored) — possibly this or this — would that be a legitimate application of WP:PSTS? Rich wales (talk · contribs) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really blame you for reverting it. I did the same thing when I first saw it (the original version of the code was from a secondary source).  I don't think the comment is added for shock value or to be gratuitous.  It is helpful to have the original source in there to avoid the constant back and forth over different interpretations (if you look in the various secondary sources, each has a slightly different way of initializing the float or writing the newton-raphson part); the original is one version where we don't have that issue.  Beyond that the statement "what the fuck" is not PG but is hardly hurtful or foul enough to really justify removing it.  I'm not really *wedded* to it, so if you can give me a strong positive reason why the comment as it is currently constituted should be removed I'll bring it up on the article talk page. Protonk (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My main concern at this point is that this is doomed to be an ongoing irritant. As long as the F-word remains as part of the text, new people will keep on coming by and censoring it with good intentions — and if other editors want the original source material to remain intact, they're going to have to remain eternally vigilant and watch for this, change it back, try to explain from scratch why it needs to stay — and even if the current well-meaning vandal-fighters accept the explanation, other people will inevitably show up who have no knowledge of the background, and it'll all have to start over again, and again, and again.  Since the point of the source material (and,indeed, the article itself) is a description of a mathematical algorithm, not the preservation of a controversial expletive in a comment, I just don't see any real ongoing value in waving a red flag and begging people to fight this particular battle forever.  Second, a precedent for editing the source has already been set (by eliminating the C preprocessor stuff), so a purist argument ("gotta keep the source precisely as-is no matter what") has already been weakened.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple points. For the most part, people editing that page have some experience w/ the code and so the only real irritant will come from a case like yours where someone removes the line and someone else reverts it, putting the edit into a special feed because it had a bad word.  I realize that leaving the comments in the code will continue to provoke such a situation (despite edit notices, commented wikicode and textual hints) but the resulting irritant is really minimal.  Second, the comment does serve a neat textual purpose as it is a primary source on something of a mysterious subject--we don't actually know who created the code but the comment after the line indicates that it probably wasn't the person who committed that revision to the Q3 source.  Third, and I want to downplay this a bit, but we don't generally censor quotes because they contain objectionable content unless such content is completely superfluous to the subject itself.  I don't see that as a purist argument but a practical one.  It simply is much more work negotiating the "right" presentation and contains none of the advantages of showing the original source.  Removing the pointers to headers isn't so much a precedent as it is unrelated.  The code we are interested in is neatly encapsulated in those lines and doesn't really need to have the stuff which occurs before or after.  You're welcome to bring this up on the talk page and suggest removal but I wouldn't support it. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this.  I've posted something to the article's talk page, and I've also posted pointers to the discussion from the talk pages of the two wikiprojects which have indicated an interest in this article.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Shapley-Folkman lemma: Copy-editing?
Hi Protonk!

Thomas Meeks credited you with being the lead author of the article on mathematical economics. Thus, your achievements and interest may make you a good copy-editor for the article on the Shapley–Folkman lemma, which just received GA status.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neat. I'll take a look over the next few days.  topline suggestions would be fleshing out the applications section (esp the first few parts), expanding the lede a hair and cleaning up the references.  But I'll try and leave some detailed comments (and make improvements here and there) on the article talk or peer review page. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your response is heartening. (BTW, User:David Eppstein just started two articles on the mathematical economists Graciela Chichilnisky and Andreu Mas-Colell, and I translated part of the article on Roger Guesnerie from the French WP last week.) Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I followed-up on your suggestions, at least as much as I shall for the next week(s). I think that I should add the JPE references, especially Farrell & Rothenberg, but that shall have to wait. (I reformatted the references, to stop you from wasting your copy-editing time!) Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made some changes, clarifying where the SF-lemma is used in Starr's paper, on the aggregate demand (sum of demands) at a given price. (There is no need to mention Brouwer's fixed-point theorem.) You'll see that I provided detailed and interesting quotes from Hotelling and Wold (and John Milton!) about non-convexity, and also referenced Wold. I added a sentence about proofs, skirting OR with the unpublished papers having inductive proofs. Maybe an expansion of the lead would be in order, following the clean-up of the applications.
 * In fact, I feel that the article is essentially done, apart from copy-editing. However, it may be that I'm tired of working on it! ;)
 * Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL
There were complaints over at Super Audio CD when I cited an Audio Engineering Society paper that costs $20 to read. That is another story, but I accept that obscure academic papers are often non-free. Fortunately there is a free version here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even non-obscure academic papers are non-free usually. :) The issue of sources behind paywalls is one of those long standing divisions within the community that are both unresolvable but basically non-issues.  Policy has almost always allowed non-free sources but preferred free sources where quality was not an issue.  But editors have invariably run into problems adding paywalled sources to articles for good and bad reasons.  We will never resolve it.  We can only hope to be sensible whenever the issue rears its head. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Userboxes and RFA
How do you feel about candidates who have a lot of userboxes that go into great detail about their affiliations? The standard I've always used, including recently, was that if you couldn't point to anything in their contributions that showed bias in their dealings with Wikipedians, then it wasn't a problem. But just recently, the new governor of Alabama said that only Christians were his brothers and sisters. He was criticized for this (duh), and Fox News complained that people weren't respecting his "First Amendment Rights" ... getting it completely backward of course, since the First Amendment is intended to protect the people from oppression by the government, not the other way around, and once he's in office, that's the role he plays in the eyes of many. Now I'm thinking, by analogy, that once admins wield the mop, people whose articles they're deleting are likely to think of them as "the law". It wouldn't be unreasonable for the admins' blockees to come to the conclusion that they weren't being given a fair shake if the admins come across as being strongly invested in some point of view on their talk page. I'm not saying we should forbid "I'm a Christian" userboxes at RFA, because you usually could find this out from their contributions, and nothing would be gained by asking people to hide who they are on their userpage. I'm talking about the general quality and quantity of the identity userboxes. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll come back later with a big response, but it might be instructive to poke around in my user page history. I used to offer a lot more information about myself on my userpage.  I removed it partially because I didn't want to deal with the RFA userbox nonsense and partially because the essay was a bit preachy. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, the "before" picture there isn't the kind of problem I'm talking about. I'm talking about a  userpage that gives the impression that the user feels defensive about a wide range of political, religious and/or social beliefs ... that gives the impression that they've been challenged often about a lot of things and they're "not going to take any more crap".  For a non-admin, I would rather someone be more honest rather than less, and I think it's very important not to force people to conform to norms.  But for an admin, the additional consideration creeps in that they're perceived as "government", and in the Western tradition, many people assume the worst when they perceive in-your-faceness from any government representative ... police officer, judge, governor, whatever. - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, back up ... just corrected all the "yous" to "admins" ... I wasn't talking about you, sorry :) Just RFA candidates in general. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a few qustions here, some of them more mundane than others. The first is the concern that userboxes (and userpaces in general) might be a  noisy channel about the user.  The second is a sort of goose and gander issue.  The third is where opprobrium fits in all this.  I'll try to handle them in turn.  I had originally dismissed the informational aspect as the least interesting, but on reflection that isn't true and you indicate exactly why.  Long term wikipedians have a precise litany about userpage and userboxes nearly committed to memory.  We argue that userboxes can be handy succinct expressions of belief but that focusing on userboxes in the observer's eyes is folly because it reifies a complex editor to a few short statements.  We are supposed to all understand that shorthand is a stand-in for a deeper and more complex position or history.  But newer users can be forgiven for not having internalized all that. :)  The fear that someone meets an admin for the first time in a "disciplinary" role and discovers some potentially biased statements loudly proclaimed in rectangular glory is a real one.  Though I'm not sure we have a neat solution.  Someone looking for some exculpatory conflict is bound to find it if those boxes have even the slightest informational content and conversely an admin who might act improperly with the tools due to a love or hatred for Arsenal is likely to reveal that through other means.  Also, complaining about userboxes in that fashion is pretty close to concern trolling--we are essentially saying that we aren't offended by the content but a hypothetical person may be.  That's a nearly impossible situation for a candidate to find themselves in because the hypothetical worried editor is a constantly moving target and it simply isn't sufficient to engage with and assuage the fears of the opposer.  The second is folded into the first, but represents a problem we either face or have engineered.  If userboxes are OK for expression (e.g. I'm a christian) but not ok for people nominally speaking for authority, then they become a privilege of the proletariat.  We don't want userboxes on admin pages because they imperil impartiality (indubitably!) but we want to defend them on non-admin pages in order to ensure we aren't shutting out diversity of views.  Not a very good general strategy as it shrinks the pool of potential admins (especially since hiding inflammatory userboxes might bring more attention than my darknet roots!), but it is worrisome from a broader standpoint because it imposes a narrative about impartiality which I am not sure we want to (or do) endorse.  If we want to oversimplify (and I do), wikipedia has two competing narratives about impartiality.  The first is what I might call the current-day Washington Post impartiality veil.  Reporters (admins, in our little analogy) are not allowed to espouse opinions about their beat, unless those opinions align with the overall company outlook.  We have admins with rather radical (for the real world) views on free software, copyright, and other issues and this raises little stir because those opinions are consonant with at least a large bulk of wikipedia editors.  To pick a slightly less inside baseball set of subjects, wikipedia admins are disproportionately pro LGBT, pro technology, AGW aware and anti-young earth creationism compared to the population as a whole in the anglosphere.  And the admins don't face many problems because they are holding values shared by a disproportionate number of wikipedia editors (compared to the population as a whole).  Where impartiality is demanded are areas where an admin works but the community is divided or not expressly aligned.  A very pro-democrat admin watching over Obama related articles might (rightly?) face complaints about impartiality and those complaints might be endorsed by the community because the admin took a stand on a subject in which he also takes admin actions.  Avoiding this is usually achieved by admins patrolling areas they have little knowledge or interest in and editing other areas (arguably this pressure is a big reason admin content edits fall off).  The other view is the Edward R. Murrow notion of impartiality.  Admins (again, reporters) recognize they have biases but either declare them at the outset or attempt to diminish their effect by policing their own actions.  In principle, this is quite a bit healthier.  You don't get admins hiding opinions about subjects in order to avoid obnoxious questions and you get people who are aware of their own limitations working in content areas where they may actually give a shit.  But in practice wikipedia tends to warp this a bit, especially in the userbox arena.  Demarcating spheres of bias becomes (literally) a badge.  Rejecting the idea of impartiality becomes tied up in identity formation.  And once you begin pushing and prodding on identities the debate becomes messy.
 * No clear answers up there. My opinion is that anyone who has a "religion is for idiots" or "abortion stops a beating heart" style userbox is too much of a fucking drama queen to be given the mop, so it is probably good I'm not a benign dictator. :) Protonk (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew I came to the right place, although I'm not sure I'm any clearer on how to vote at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At least now you know what a Shannon channel is! Protonk (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just invoked your name at WT:RFA. If I invoke the devil, will he appear? - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If Protonk has some material at hand on the helpfulness of topic bans, or the helpfulness of the threat of topic bans, I would certainly be interest, even if not clearly relevant to that specific discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did make some comments about topic bans here. Not sure if that helps. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think probably topic-bans would be one of the last options I'd try at RFA, on the theory that RFA just rubs some people the wrong way ... if there's a separate reason to ban them, then sure, you can throw their behavior at RFA into the pot of things you look at. The main two points I'm getting from your link, Protonk, are that enforcement is time-intensive, and enforcers self-select. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the bulk of it. I had another somewhat muddled comment about how we misplace topic bans on the continuum of response.  A topic ban feels like a natural step up from a warning but is sometimes as severe or more severe than a technical block on an account (especially a temporary one).  But that issue is secondary to the two you picked up on. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely different topic, should you choose to give private or public feedback: WT:RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Left a comment there. The whole subject depresses me.  I don't have an easy answer. Protonk (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That figures, seems to me Protonk, that you spend a lot of time telling other people their solutions for improving RfA are crap, but appear not to suggest any of your own. Kudpung (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What. What part of WP:CIVIL tells you that criticism of particular ideas is somehow proscribed?  Read that part to me. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, what is this. I'm going to be perfectly clear.  Announcing that specific individuals are responsible for some bad acts but refusing to actually provide evidence or substantiate claims is schoolyard bullshit.  It doesn't improve discourse and it isn't how adults talk to each other. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship
Hello! I would like to see if you could help mentor me as an editor. CMTucker (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to. You can contact me here anytime or use my email (see the link on the left sidebar).  I'll also watch your talkpage.  You can watch this talkpage by clicking the little star on the top of the page (may be a link that says "watch this page" if you are using a different skin). Protonk (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentor
Hello,

I was wondering if you would have time to be my online mentor for Wikipedia. I'm a graduate student a W Carolina University, studying Public Affairs. Thank you. Have a good day.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jch127 (talk • contribs)


 * Sure thing. I'll watch your talk page and pay attention here for any questions you might have.  Please feel free to email me as well (the link in the left sidebar) if you are more comfortable doing that. Hope you have a good semester! Protonk (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

RE:CAIS Images
Hi. The images where wrongly tagged as being licensed as newspaper pages (Non-free newspaper image) -- clearly not proper tags. As such they were immediately removed. feydey (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait what. You didn't look at the specific fair use rationales just the boilerplate tag (which was probably used because we don't have a tag for journal images)?  And why not just remove Non-free newspaper image rather than deleting the images? Protonk (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the first sentence for the license tag: This image is of a scan of a newspaper page or article -- it is to be used on images of newspaper cover pages and articles ONLY. Clearly just an image is not such, please read the license's talk page. feydey (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need to tell me twice that those images weren't from a newspaper. If the tag was in error, why was the resolution deleting the image and not removing the tag (since the tag itself isn't really necessary)?  What about the individual FUR? Protonk (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, see Criteria_for_speedy_deletion -- "F7. Invalid fair-use claim. Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a Non-free logo tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately." Nothing about the "individual FUR" or "removing the tag". feydey (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, You are welcome to restore the images anytime, if You can license them properly. feydey (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Glad this took 5 back and forths before that became clear. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember to tag the images with one of the image copyright tags. feydey (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The images don't fit any of the use cases in those templates. Hence the original problem of someone choosing a similar but inaccurate licensing tag. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Image use policy: An image summary and image copyright tag are required for all images. You should ask Media copyright questions for a proper tag. feydey (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's have a conversation rather than you just reiterating language in policy to me. We don't have an image copyright tag for this class of image.  These images undoubtably improve the articles where they are used and they respect our fair use policy by meeting or exceeding all the points of the NFCC.  I'm more than happy to make or have made a copyright tag for these class of images at my leisure, but the existence or non-existence of a tag or template is a hindrance which should not impede us from improving the encyclopedia.  If you feel strongly otherwise then I am open to hearing you explain why, but I'm not really interested in having policy pages read to me on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that in the future anyone who looks at the image may say: "I see no license tag!" and tag it for deletion again. So I suggest looking for a copyright tag. Also please add an image summary to the images. feydey (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The components of the image summary (source, copyright holder, author, permission, etc.) already exist on each image. As for the image tag, I would certainly prefer someone tagging the image for deletion because it doesn't have a tag over someone deleting it outright because the tag doesn't strictly match the content. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Mentor
Hello,

I am am a student at Montana State University. I am required to find a mentor for a class involved in the US Public Policy Project. Do you have room or time to mentor me? Thanks for you time.

Cheers,

Jackie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiewickens (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I saw you got another mentor.  Best of luck!

AMX FAC
I re-nominated the article for FAC, please add yourself as a nominator. — GabeMc (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I re-nominated the article for FAC, please add yourself as a nominator, and thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Adam
I'm Paul, a graduate student at Indiana University. As part of Wikipedia's Public Policy Initiative, my classmates and I will be writing articles on environmental topics for our environmental economics and policy course this semester. Each of us need to select a mentor, and your interests seem similar to mine. Are you available to be a mentor?

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnvEcon11 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Paul. I'm listed as an additional mentor on the mentor list, but I'm happy to take on one more mentee especially if you feel that your interests might align with mine.  Anything to help you out getting started writing articles.  I'll watch your talk page and you can watch mine by clicking the little star on the top bar (it might be a tab labeled "watch" if you are using a different skin).  If you want to get ahold of me you can leave a message here or send me an email by clicking the email link on the sidebar.  Alternately my email is just this username at gmail.com. :)  Hope your semester is going well! Protonk (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica please
A single IP posting nonsense should be blocked, rather than having a talk page protected. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Eh. A 6 hour period removes the incentive to hop to another IP and keep it up.  Do you want me to block the Ip and unprotect the page? Protonk (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

marking mentees' userpages
Hey Adam! This is just a quick reminder: please be sure to add WAP student (for an example, see User:Sfofana) the user pages of your mentees. And once they are working on articles, be sure to tag the talk pages with WAP assignment. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to mark the talk pages for articles with that tag but am less comfortable editing someone else's userpage. I'll leave a note w/ my mentees asking them if they want the template to be added to their userpage. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Unilateration
I don't understand this at all and I'm an EE. Could you find someone to explain to me "Unless with Multilateration, the system concept primarily addresses simply the simple question of here or not here up to the quality of close or far and serves the binary answer yes or no respectively the crossing of a scaled threshold.", to pick out one rich sweet piece from this word salad (Jimbo help us, this is from the lead paragraph) ? Or may I just cut out sentences that are gibberish like that one? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can probably cut it out. I restored the article because it was deleted in a process called proposed deletion and as such requires only a request to restore it.  I don't actually know if the subject is notable or if the article is just doing an incredibly bad job at summarizing. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know if the un-PROD requester been advised of the listing of this article for deletion? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't notify them, so I don't know. Protonk (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tracked down after a dozen mouse clicks or so, I've let the (anon IP) know that the article he was studying (!) is in danger of being whacked unless more references come up. I don't have a good feeling about this, but AGF and all that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them
This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
 WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

PC
Thanks for taking the time to add such well-considered comments in the PC debate. You raised several points which I had not heard before; it was insightful.  Chzz  ► 02:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wish I were more articulate, but I figured it was better to throw it out there before the RfC got too ponderous.  Comments there are appreciated, of course. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Viewing deleted articles
Hi id like to view a delete article (Gareth Kirkham) how do I do this. Thank you RonnieC8 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does not appear to be a copyright violation, so we can take a few different routes. I can email you the text of the article (if you have email enabled for your account) or I can move a copy of the article into your userspace.  The deletion discussion from 2 years ago seemed to indicate that the article was a hoax, so I would be cautious using it to infer any factual content, but I am happy to provide a copy of the article if you want it.  Let me know which method you might prefer. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont have an email linked to my account so the second option would be the best. The article is for a college presentation on biased and unreliable sources of information so the fact its a hoax is irrelevant to me. Thank you for your help RonnieC8 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just created my user page. Could you please post a copy of the article there. Will I be able to view the history of the article as I would a current article? Again thanks for your help RonnieC8 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is now at User:RonnieC8/Gareth Kirkham, along with all past edits (you can get at them by clicking the "History" tab). Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

mentorship request
Hi, I am Kartik Trivedi, currently I am student of Indiana University, Bloomington, studying as master student of public affairs. I am involved in wikipedia project for writing articles on public affairs. I would really appreciate if you would like to be as my mentor for the same. Your answer independent of what it is will be appreciated. Regards, Kartik Trivedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaxtrance (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Kartik. I haven't updated the mentor page yet, but I have three mentees at present.  Unless you have a specific reason to want me over someone else then I think you would be better served by finding a mentor with no or one mentee currently.  Sorry. Protonk (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards.  My 76 Strat  08:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

noob
How can there be a 'reliable' source that isn't user edited? The word isn't even in the dictionary. It itself is user-created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordonOng (talk • contribs)

Sig
Your sig is a bit fucked up, for some reason.  Chzz  ► 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * hmm. Not sure what caused that. Protonk (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blame aliens, move along :-) Cheers,  Chzz  ► 00:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps tumblbeasts have gotten out of their natural habitat. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

PC
This was awesome. I'm hesitant to clutter that page any more with mere "I agree" comments, but I do I agree completely. The panic over BLPs that began a while back was bad enough; it has soured the atmosphere at Wikipedia considerably. The morphing of the panic into "OMG! Libel!" rants is just completely over the top. Rivertorch ([[User talk:River

Online Ambassador Program
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC) torch|talk]]) 03:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Keithmonti is a classic s.p.a.
The guy has a perfect record; his only edits since the account opened last year, have been to spam other articles by inserting BidRivals, and to attempt to restore BidRivals to Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The SPA tag exists (IMO) so that in a deletion discussion the closing admin or other editors can weigh comments appropriately.  In a forum like REFUND we aren't really engaged in a deletion discussion on the merits.  We are just going to restore or not restore an article based on our judgment and the tools available.  Apart from the empirical regularity that most editors posting at REFUND (even without filtering out requests which lead to undeletion) only have a few edits outside of a topic area, it just isn't a very helpful tag.  You can re-add it if you want but I don't feel it is worth the bother.  I doubt anyone is going to restore the article based on the presumption that the user is a long-time or disinterested editor and I hope that we would restore an uncontroversial deletion regardless of the account status. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:


 * 1) Add  to the articles' talk pages.  (The other parameters of the WAP assignment template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
 * 2) If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: WikiProject United States Public Policy
 * 3) Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself.  The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well.  The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them The WikiPen if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm getting caught in the middle
My partner will be copyediting Malcom X tomorrow, and I don't know a better copy editor. I'll be along when he's done. Also, per your request to stay notified of current developments, see Eureka! We're all morons. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear policy of the United States
Hey I saw that several of your students in Maria Papadakis's class are working with Nuclear policy of the United States, but one of the students in another class just created the page! I am not sure how we should deal with this, I am cc'ing you in an e-mail with the professor and we can try to sort something out, Sadads (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearing the air
I'm not sure why you keep taking offense to my comments on Talk:Futurama theorem, but they aren't intended to be offensive. Sometimes tone is tough to communicate online. I consider Wikipedia a serious reference work and my comments are intended to be strongly worded arguments on strictly Wikipedia-related issues, not personal attacks or browbeating. Andrevan@ 21:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary as default proposal discussion
I liked your comment 'oppose a trial as a means to "convince" the opposition'. Well said. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread
No I am not reporting you... I raised an issue at ANI over the .CH fork that keeps getting reinserted. See WP:ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Chat?
I'll be in irc for a couple of days ... if you have a minute, ping me there, or leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research
Hi ,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

About the offwiki problem
If the administrator can take prompt action against SchmuckyTheCat vandalism on Hong Kong and Macau related articles, I will cooperate with Wikipedia administrator on off-wiki canvassing, in spite of I do not think off-wiki canvassing is not a big problem for defending wikipedia. Martinoei (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really empowered or interested in making promises like that. Wikipedia doesn't generally care that you make a comment about someone on a blog post unless the comment is malicious or otherwise. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing the AMX RFC
The RFC won't archive, I think it might need to be closed. I will re-nominate AMX on the 15th of May, could use your help with comments if you have the time. Thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll help if I can, though I worry that we are talking about three different kinds of changes:
 * Changes above my level of competence (noting that my edits to the reception section caused a bunch of secondary tense and syntax errors)
 * Changes which may require wholesale restructuring of the piece but which are necessary.
 * Changes I'm not prepared to make, namely those that stem from an unwillingness to accept or peruse the secondary sources or changes which damage the piece in order to meet some Platonic standard of a voiceless encyclopedia.
 * Also you may want to wait a little longer to let a few more FACs cycle through before we go back for another bite at the apple. Both you and Malik have made exceptional improvements to the article, so the decision is more up to you than me, however. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have renominated AMX for FAC, I think we might get it passed this time. — GabeMc (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You put a lot of time into the article also, and you deserve to be a co-nominator, so please do add your name. — GabeMc (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User Cameron Scott
Despite your comment here diff, seems to wish to repeatedly continue to pursue this issue. Thoughts on what should be done to resolve this? -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, seems to be resolved now. -- Cirt (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad. Sorry this kinda blew up on you. Protonk (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Autobiography of Malcolm X
Congratulations, and thank you for all your assistance. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ditto, we couldn't have done this without your efforts, so thanks for your insightful guidance. — GabeMc (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I even got a blog post out of it. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC for trial
If you have posted anything to a sub page in my user space, please consider making a copy of your post before I delete the page. There is nothing official about the page which contains a few rough personal notes only, and any links to it were made in error. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * that's fine. I'd just like to know about a trial proposal when it happens so that a sensible alternative can be proposed before the page is littered with dozens of different views.  If we are going to trial this feature it needs to be done right. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry  about  this, it  looks as if another admin  has unilaterally  move-deleted my  user sub  page. I'll  have a quiet  word with  an arb to see if this is allowed for future reference, I  don't  want to make a fuss or end up  loosing  my  tools. Good luck  to  anyone who  wishes to  get  this trial  up  and running. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend you just have a quiet word with the admin instead. I'm sure he means well. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify
Could you please go and clarify your support vote at Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica. Silver seren C 22:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Left a followup there. Protonk (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

REVDEL?
Hi, I am wondering if this outing needs to be revdel'd? I've deleted it in the current page version, but obviously can't revdel from the historicals. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 02:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again Protonk, quick question... if there's a better way of requesting a revdel or review for revdel than trying to track down an online sysop, please let me know. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 03:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lemme take a look. I think the userpage links to the blog so it isn't outing per se but I have to look. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted in an abundance of caution. I still don't know what in the world is going on in that discussion so I don't want to outright block the IP (yet) but I'll leave a note. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just left one. Not sure either, but a quick look at the user's page showed no identifying info or links (didnt check the history/prev versions though), so I figured it was better to be safe than sorry (especially since I could simply undo my edit if needed). Thanks again, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 03:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the discussion (right after you I see, thanks) and the talk page of that IP. Like I said on the talk page I don't want to block it because the blog is linked from one account (assuming the two accounts are the same) and I still have no clue what the actual complaint is regarding.  As for a revision deletion board, I don't know.  The best way is to hop on the IRC channel and ask for an active admin or just email oversight (not really an oversight matter but they can revdel too) if it is urgent.  There may be an appropriate messageboard, but I am not clued in to the REVDEL process enough to say--this being my first non-housekeeping revision deletion. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Much thanks! -R R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 03:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
Thanks for all your well-considered and even-tempered comments there. You've really improved the quality of the debate. You managed to articulate more clearly several things I've been trying to say, and I really appreciate that. zorblek (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had the Naming and Necessity comment clattering around in my head since the WoWWiki/WoWPedia dispute but couldn't find a good way to articulate it. Protonk (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

On a totally separate issue
Over on the CocoRosie article, two new editors started editing within minutes of each other. I don't have that much of an issue with their edits, which are in good faith, once I realized that they weren't vandalism, but they're adding people to current and previous members in the infobox that just collaborated with the group on albums and such in the past and, thus, aren't "members". While that isn't a huge issue, one of the users also has removed the information that CocoRosie are of the genre freak folk, which is how practically all of the reliable sources about them describe the group as. The user said in the edit summary that they know that CocoRosie don't consider themselves freak folk, but without a source presented, it's essentially OR. I'm at my reversion limit, so i'm not sure what to do. Silver seren C 04:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Undone with additional message with hopefully helpful links. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 04:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am a little suspicious about the two of them editing the same info and showing up at practically the same time, but I don't know if it's worth taking it to SPI, since they aren't really being disruptive, per se. Silver  seren C 04:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have an appallingly bad track record w/ judging socks by behavioral evidence, so I won't even try to do that. :) Protonk (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With my track record in mind they do basically look like the same editor. Hopefully this can be resolved without blocking people. Protonk (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh joy, genre trolling. Ugh.  I put it on my watchlist.  If the edits continue I'll protect the article or do something admin-y. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you respond at Talk:CocoRosie? Silver  seren C 20:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean to this comment? I don't have much of a response.  I'm travelling so I don't want to load that video up.  If the video doesn't mention freak folk then I don't see a problem with reverting the edit and either leaving out the freak folk mention (one way or the other) or reinserting the genre should their be a source that confirms it. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbPol: communication and processes etc
I take your point entirely about poor communication and have replied to it on the ratification page. The root cause - time zones and slow internal communications - do need addressing though. One difficulty here is that the composite of the committee changes significantly every year and some members are simply better at communication (and perhaps more community-facing) in their communcations than others. Perhaps we can discuss this further after the ratification thing is over to see what can practically be done? Roger Davies talk 07:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm prickly on the poll page because I think the locus points for feedback are so few.  I also will say that this year's committee is a bit better than lasts (though not as much as promised from the election, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, eh?). Protonk (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Last year's committtee was slightly stuffed by the high number of early departures, which put the remaining arbitrators under great pressure. I'll think about a feedback route - that's a very good idea - though how we do this without pile-on may be tricky.  Roger Davies  talk 03:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah cause right now the feedback is on AN/I or the arb noticeboard, where pileon comes naturally. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The obvious route, of course, is by email though that route makes the some community members very uncomfortable on opacity grounds. Suggestions welcome :)  Roger Davies  talk 04:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Just saying
Enjoyed your contributions to this thread. I especially like the one that says "long link is looong", but cumulatively they definitely evoked some chuckles. Not that reading ANI is tedious or anything. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. I try.  I like to think my crusading for a fixed width AN/I outweighs the minor rabble rousing. :) Protonk (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Need some help
Recently I requested that the Borgore page be reopened. The page you read was probably the old page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Borgore is a page I made recently and was wondering if that would be acceptable. If so, how would I seek a proper undeletion for this page? If not, thank you for you time. This is the first time I've ever tried to create an article so I'm a bit confused on how things work. AntiCommons (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Alright. I've found sources, but only interviews. I didn't feel that would be acceptable but I noticed some other articles only sourcing interviews so again I was not sure. Thank you. I'll take my questions to those other pages.
 * I'm about to get on a train so I can't help too much. The basic idea is this.  In order to have an article on anything we need some reliable sources which are separate from the article subject.  So if we wanted an article on a company we could not just use the company's website as the only source--though we could certainly use that for some information.  If the subject of the article has been covered in some detail in a reliable source then the best way to make an article is to start by summarizing that source and filling in information as needed with different sources.  If a subject does not have coverage in a reliable source than that is probably a good indicator that it will not meet our guidelines for inclusion.  Start by looking up the subject in google news or google books or searching on prominent music websites or regional newspapers.  If you can find something there but aren't sure that what you have found is enough, ask for some help with the Helpme template or talk to someone at articles for creation.  They should be able to walk you through some of the steps. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interviews are fine, so long as the interviewer is a reliable source. This is an Israeli dubstep guy right?  So an interview in Haaretz (or the JP or something of similar size) or Rolling Stone would clearly be ok.  An interview with bob478 on youtube might be more problematic.  I hope you find help w/ the help template or AfC.  If you can't I'll be back on tonight or tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Subpages
I know that I can do it, however, being in the Navy, I don't have too much time to sit down and actually get it done. The Undead Never Die (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you can't be a sonar tech if you don't have the time to change Protonk (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Snarky comments aren't really appreciated man. And I'm not a Sonar Tech, I'm an air traffic controller. Cheers. The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Calm down, it's just a joke. Protonk (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [&bull; ] 11:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeking your advice
Hi Protonk,

I'm still learning about the culture here at Wikipedia. I was hoping you could shed some insight. Over at the AIS page, someone has added a popular culture section, and has referenced the Japanese movie Ringu (the lead character has AIS). I thought about deleting the section, but I wasn't sure it was appropriate for me to do so: on one hand, people want to know these things; on the other hand, AIS women are typically misrepresented in popular culture, and these references aren't really great encyclopedic content (for instance, "House MD" had an episode where a woman with AIS is described alternately as "hypersexual" and a "dude"). If it was just me, I'd cut them out, but this article obviously isn't just for me. Perhaps you could lend your 2 cents?

Thanks. Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Pop culture sections tend to collect around "popular" articles over time.  Take Cheshire Cat for example (actually that pop culture section used to be its own article until it was folded in to the main one over my objections)--you get the good with the bad.  There is obviously a lot of helpful information in there but also a lot of cruft.  On a meta level pop culture sections serve as safety valves for a bulk of new user participation.  Most people with productive comments on AIS won't have the medical expertise necessary to edit the main portions of the article; however, anyone can add a note about a book or TV show.  Consider the pop culture section as a "sacrificial anode" for the rest of the article.  But you want to keep control of tone and quality.  So I would suggest you look around for some medical discourse work on AIS which focuses on popular representations.  Then you can augment the pop culture section with some actual commentary on the presentation of the disorder.  Even changing the section title to "media representation" may help some.  The downside is simple: doing so is hard work!  A simpler alternative is to see if there are any sources which talk about the presentation of AIS in House or Ringu (rather than a wikipedia editor simply watching the show or movie) and if you don't find them, remove or edit the text as necessary.  Does that help at all? Protonk (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does; thanks for the sound advice (as usual)! Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

BLPN
Hi Protonk, I understand very well why you feel it is absurd not to link to the site if we are allowed to mention it. I still think policy is correct though. There are plenty of notable websites that have attracted secondary source coverage, because they have become the subject of a defamation suit, or are viewed as hate sites, racist attacks, etc. If the dispute about the website is notable, it might well be legitimate to mention it in a BLP, or related article. But that does not mean that we should provide a link to every such site whenever secondary source coverage mandates our mentioning it. The reader who wishes to see the site can easily do so -- all they have to do is copy the address to the top of their browser window. We are not preventing them from doing that if they want to. Hope that makes sense, or is at least a position you can respect, if not embrace. Cheers, -- J N  466  17:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't embrace it. I understand that we have restrictions on which sites we may link to.  However we confuse those restrictions with guiding principles.  The core facility of the web is hyperlinking and wikipedia is what it is today because we are a good net citizen.  Where we are prevented from linking to a site for a bright line purpose we should respect that, however I see no bright line crossed here.  I see vague allegations that wikipedia is somehow involved in the santorum campaign as well as allegations that the site itself is defamatory.  Neither of those two have been proven by any stretch of the imagination.  Even had they been proven we should be careful about inserting our judgment for that of the reader.  Refusing to link to a site is tantamount to disavowal and unless we have a very good reason to do so we should be cautious about disavowing any site--especially one which is the subject/font of a notable campaign.  More broadly I feel that the cart is pushing the horse in these debates.  BLP serves to guide and inform article editing and content.  It is not a means by which we impose an opinion nor is it a starting point for an article.  The correlation between opposition to the "campaign" article generally and opposition to the link itself should serve to warn us of the inclinations of those who would remove the link.  I don't mean conscious bias or censorship or anything.  I think most editors on that page are acting in good faith and trying to protect their vision of the encyclopedia.  However if we offer removal of the link as an implicit concession prize to those that would rather the article be stubbed or removed, we are going about things the wrong way. Protonk (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in that probably everyone contributing does it with the motivation you have articulated above. For myself, the fact that it is a self-published and derogatory website about a living person is inescapable. WP:BLPSPS and WP:ELBLP were written with precisely that type of site in mind, and I can't support linking to it. -- J N  466  18:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a (somewhat) related reply to those concerns here. I suspect we will have to agree to disagree.  Remember that just as I am overzealous in defending wikipedia as a fair and unbiased resource against instruction creep masquerading as BLP others may be overzealous in applying/enforcing BLP due solely from a heartfelt and passionate desire to improve the encyclopedia.  We are all on the same team, even though I'm kind of a dick. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said. The path to strife is paved with good intentions. :) No hard feelings. -- J N  466  09:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the guideline has been edited in the last 6 months
Regarding your comment at WP:AN, given your level of confidence about WP:N you must also know that the guideline used to say some variant of, "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics ...". That is indeed why the notability template still says, "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." I admit that presently, I do not see the above mentioned language in the guideline, but I'm not sure when it was edited out. I'll grant that my saying "must" may have been an exaggeration but otherwise I was absolutely basing my point the guideline (as I last remembered it). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing changed the language in October of last year. See here.Griswaldo (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I guess my confidence was misplaced, as I haven't paid too much attention to WP:N since the failed attempt to make it into a policy.  I would prefer that the guideline be quality agnostic, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride... Protonk (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can't pass WP:V without multiple citations to independent sources anyway, so WP:N not being a policy doesn't matter. That's the sad thing about the whole "but WP:N isn't policy" argument: WP:N doesn't impose a single requirement on an article that isn't already placed upon it by policy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well going down that road kinda puts us on a treadmill. Here's my basic theory of how WP:N should work.
 * All of our articles should meet our core content policies: OR, NPOV, and V
 * Whatever inclusion guidelines we create should serve two purposes (keeping in mind the above point):
 * The guidelines should be easy to understand and implement. An experienced editor should be able to explain an inclusion guideline to a new user in a few sentences with limited jargon.
 * While the guidelines should not recapitulate V/OR/NPOV, they should provide a reasonably accurate heuristic such that if a subject meets our inclusion guidelines it should be possible to write an article which meets all of our inclusion guidelines.
 * As such, maybe WP:N and the daughter guidelines are better as guidelines. But they serve different purposes and should refer to different targets.  A subject meets N allowing the article content to be unoriginal, verifiable and neutral.  Eliminating that distinction damages the functionality of N as a guideline. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, if all of the following four conditions are true:
 * the article contains no information about BLPs,
 * the article contains no direct quotations,
 * nobody has WP:CHALLENGED any of the material (yet), and
 * you (using your best judgment) believe that nobody's WP:LIKELY to contest the material currently in the article,
 * then no policy requires any citations.
 * I'm not sure this is exactly a desirable situation, but that is actually what the policies say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't feel this way a year ago, but I think it is a perfectly reasonable situation. Only because the actual alternative (not the utopian alternatives) is so grim. Protonk (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:V clearly requires that the topics of article be discussed in independent, third-party sources. Beyond that, it requires that our articles be "based" upon the material contained in such sources. Not "include". Not "hint at". Not "suggest that perhaps the reader should go look at it as well". We are told to "base" articles on this material. While inline citations can be viewed as a frill, it's very hard to demonstrate that an article was based on independent, third-party sources without identifying them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but like I said, inclusion guidelines should be a heuristic. The cases where a subject is actually discussed by sources in the manner you describe but those sources are not contained in the article are relatively rare and easy to fix.  Much more common are the cases where the sources don't actually exist (and by necessity aren't in the article) or where the sources exist but there is some disagreement over their validity or applicability.  think of it this way.  WP:N ought to be a page where I can look to see if I should write an article about something.  Obviously when I'm contemplating writing an article I can't point to extant sources in the article. :) Protonk (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True enough. The introduction of WP:N should be a fairly strong hint that you probably shouldn't write an article about whatever topic you have in mind. It should point out that you need to be able to locate several independent sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail, and that the amount of material that you can derive from those sources is so massive and weighty that it couldn't reasonably be placed as a discussion in a more general article, and is substantially larger than the material being derived from a primary source. In an ideal world, it would point out that random specks found in geographic databases, bus routes, residential streets, album tracks, fictional characters, and television episode summaries essentially never meet those criteria. Aaaah ... what a fantasy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability about restoring the prior language, which seems to be in line with current policy. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Meetup image
Be advised that File:Chicago Meetup 4 - Protonk.jpg is up at commons and at the Meetup/Chicago 4 page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)