User talk:Protonk/Archive 13

Kiwis and such
This kind of thing is basically exactly what I feared would happen if the user were unblocked. There's nothing technically wrong with creating that article, but it takes far more helpings of good faith than I have, and I have a lot, to believe this is just an effort to improve the encyclopedia, rather than an effort to make a point or just tweak other editors and stir up controversy. I've redirected it to another article where the info could be included, but if that doesn't stick we'll likely end up at AfD since Monica's dad simply does not remotely warrant an article in my view (and I hope that of most editors). And then we'll have another big stupid argument that could have been avoided.

I'm 98.7% (roughly) sure we are being played here and that Mr. or Ms. Kiwi/Wiki Bomb finds this all very amusing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I find the best way to deal with people who may be playing you for amusement is to not focus on the possibility at all. If he is a sock or someone fucking around for fun, he'll be reblocked in due course.  Or he'll get bored and leave.  In general though, I don't agree with the proposition that we ought to block editors based solely/largely on their success at AfD.  I meant what I said on the unblock section.  If something new arises which warrants him being blocked, ok.  If not, we can just wait around. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem lies, or rather can lie, in the waiting around though, doesn't it? An account like this can, indeed already has, waste a lot of people's time, including yours and mine, and if they dance expertly on the edge of what is or is not blockable then by no means will they automatically be reblocked in due course (one can edit in a disruptive but not technically blockable fashion, as you undoubtedly well know). Added to that, now they are creating incredibly questionable BLP articles, or one at least, and linking them back to the neologism article, something which in other circumstances might look like best-Wiki practices but in this context looks like anything but.


 * I'm not actually asking you to take action here, I'm just drawing your attention to the recent edits and pointing out that they seem pretty problematic (also predictable I think). And obviously I'm considerably less sanguine than you are about the "wait around and see what they do" approach. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sanguine because the "harm" he is doing is minimal at most. Once the AfD on the Lewinsky article got more than a few good faith keep votes I think we moved demonstrably out of the territory where those articles were unambiguously a threat to the wiki.  It isn't like he could do any more harm to Monica Lewinsky's family than the Starr Report.  Step back, examine the whole and think about what the consequences of letting this play out (drama or farce, depending on your perspective). Protonk (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * More to the point, how does Bernard Lewinsky fit in with the santorum campaign? Protonk (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is obvious. The article on Bernard Lewinsky was solely created to support the Lewinsky (neologism) article, in particular, the section on "Usage on Law & Order: Special Victim's Unit", which depends on the notability of the subject for its major claim. In turn, this gives added legitimacy to the concept of a "Lewinsky" as a neologism, and is a tactical POINT made in direct relation to the battle over the "Santorum" neologism. This is one of the worst unblocks I've ever seen. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Lewinsky AfD
I would ask that you look at what I said in the AfD. Silver seren C 00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw it. I won't respond in the AfD but despite my noted (and infamous, for the little I do around here) skepticism toward BLP, I feel NPF is critically important to how we handle BLP deletions and content.  Couple that with my general distaste for subject specific notability guidelines and I'm still on the fence with respect to the article. Protonk (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're completely misusing what WP:NPF is for. It is meant to mean that only information directly related to a subject's notability should be included if the subject is relatively unknown. It is not an argument for deletion at all. Silver  seren C 01:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not misusing anything. It is just a guarded interpretation of a policy.  I interpret NPF to mean that we should be maximally careful about material regarding subjects who are not public figures.  If someone doesn't go out of their way to put themselves in the public eye we should not work to push them into it.  Perhaps that is something of an over-reach but it is far less broad than the common interpretation of BLP.  Further, the sourcing of the article is marginal.  It would be enough to pass AfD for someone whose principal role in Wikipedia would be something other than a blue link in the Lewinsky Scandal template, but we lack broad biographical sources.  Lastly, and this seems to be a repeat from the last long conversation we had, we are not that far apart.  I am on the fence about deletion and stated that explicitly in the AfD.  I probably won't return to the discussion except as requested so I imagine your efforts would be better spent convincing active participants of the quality of the sourcing. Protonk (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I took another look at the sources and I think I agree with you. There is enough material available for us to make an article which meets V/NPOV/NOR. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Rock Hill Galleria
Am I right in saying that articles can't be speedied if they've already been through AFD? I AFD'ed it in 2007, but withdrew the nomination. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think general practice suggests that we shouldn't speedily delete articles which survived a deletion discussion unless there is a good reason to do so (and A7 wouldn't qualify if the article had survived an AfD), but more importantly the speedy was 7 months old and the AfD was 4 years old. I'm more than willing to just say that neither action is important enough to make restoration controversial.  That's probably not a very helpful response, but at least it is pragmatic. Protonk (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Economics article
Not sure if you're interested, but the economics article I mentioned to you is History of macroeconomic thought. It was at FAC but didn't pass; if you check that nomination and the talk page you'll see discussions that I'm not equipped to assess but which you might be interested in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks for pinging me. I had forgotten the article. Protonk (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I suspected it is a hot mess. I'll leave a note on your talk page with some brief comments which may be relevant to you and (hopefully) leave some comment on the talk page later. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI - premature expenditure of energy?
As the santorum article talk has, as of late, fallen off the scale low in editorial attention (for reasons probably all too clear), I just wanted to FYI you that this expenditure of energy on "Weasel Words" seems awfully premature and may, in fact, be addressing an issue that might be rendered moot pending resolution of 2 superior content issues. I have been attempting to inspire resolution of these issues, thus far to no avail. As interesting as the discussion of "Weasel Words" might be, perhaps you might consider contributing to the designated topics on these 2 issues? Any consideration in that regard would be appreciated. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are trying to ask me or suggest that I do. Can you clarify please? Protonk (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, you seem to have made it back alive as well. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only barely. I have no idea how I woke up at 7 AM but I did. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to...and looking at it again...it's currently one "question" (but perhaps should be expanded to 2 to cover the "vulgar" content issue as well). One of the "Weasel Words" that is problematical was incorporated as an interim accommodation pending resolution of WP:UNDUE considerations for the attribution of Santorum comment criticisms as emanating from "...gay rights groups and some politicians". I established a topic to hopefully reach consensus on that question but editor participation has been meager at best. Your consideration and contribution (if you're so inclined) would be welcome and might start the ball rolling again. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll come take a look at it tomorrow. I'm almost upset at myself for helping to spur the original "vulgar" debate as too many words have been spilled on the topic with regard to the significance of the sentence. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I have my own opinion and have vigorously expressed it, I simply want it consensus-resolved and resolved it must be...then back to improving whatever remains. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse
Can you Please Restore User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse as per DRV--Kygora 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You would like me to submit it to articles for creation? Protonk (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes please. i was going to do it myself, but would prefer an Admin to do it.--Kygora 20:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. The review may take a few days and may result in the same results of past AfC requests.  If it does the article will be deleted and remain so for the foreseeable future unless new sources arise. Protonk (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Protonk, hi. I am a bit unsure what is going on here. I thought User:Kygora just wanted a copy back in his user space to keep there and work on. Is it the case that your restored version to his mainspace is going to be reviewed and judged if it should go into main space - or if not deleted? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Basically yes. If you read the DRV you can see some of my reasoning there as to why this article in particular is going to AfC and not simply returned to userspace. Protonk (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia&. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania Stories Project
My name is Victor Grigas and I'm a Storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation. We're exploring new ways to explain why Wikipedia is so special and we’ve started a Wikipedia Stories Project, where we’re chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community, especially editors and active contributors in the movement like you. I'll be traveling to Wikimania next month to collect stories for our 2011 Fundraiser. While there I'd love the chance to meet with you and hear your thoughts about Wikipedia. We’ll have a schedule of available times for you to sign up if you’re interested, but right now, we’d like to make the initial contact to gauge your interest. Please let me know by emailing me at vgrigas@wikimedia.org or responding on my talk page.

thank you,

Victor Grigas (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"santorum" consensus
Protonk, as you might be aware, I've instituted a process to, hopefully and credibly, NPOV resolve remnant hotbutton issues. As a prior participant in that discussion, I would appreciate any consideration you might care to offer. Any credible resolution will require significant editor input and your observations would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

NFCR
I added a comment at. I'm posting this because the last comment was in February, so it isn't exactly an active discussion. I proposed an out of the box solution, but if that is not feasible, I think it should be removed.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador for MSU Fall 2011 NAS Class
Hi, I hope I've got the right Online Ambassador. I think we meet at Boston Summit and you told me you'd be willing to be the Online Ambassador for our Native American Studies Federal Indian Law and Policy Class. If this is correct please let me know. If not, please excuse my mistake. Thanks, Bonnie McMormor (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd love to! You may contact me on email via wikipedia (or just @gmail.com) or on this talk page.  I'm on a flight to Tel Aviv and I'll be back in the states on the 9th, so I may not reply until then. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome! We'll can discuss further via email when you get back to the states. Travel safely and enjoy! McMormor (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yo!
Hey dude; sorry for vanishing, I got ambushed by Howie and a couple of Foundation people. I'll be around all of tomorrow at the venue if you want to chat, although I have a presentation at 9am (eep). Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries! Good to see you give a smashing talk.  Can't tell you how much I appreciated your full throated articulation of WP:N as simply a means to V/NOR.  I'll see you tomorrow and we can touch base. Protonk (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Brilliant - if you liked the talk, you'll love my reform proposal. I'll see if I can print some copies off. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, couldn't print some off. Drop me an email so I know where to send it to :P. Ironholds (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
 * Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
 * Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
 * Watching out for the class as a whole
 * Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with&mdash;especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area&mdash;you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Thanks!
I don't know how copyrights work Please help! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Advice...
Hi - ages back you helped with some comments on pricing and the Kenilworth Castle article, so thought I'd run this one past you... I've got a price in French livres (232,818 livres) from 1691 - ideally I'd like to try and give an equivalent modern day price of some sort. I can convert livres of the period into pounds sterling (albeit not 100% safely, as the exchange rates aren't clear cut for the period), and then work out a modern £ equivalent from the contemporary sterling figure, but it doesn't feel like the right way to do it. Ideally, I'd like to convert the 1691 livres straight into modern Euros, but I can't find a good source for French early modern price indexes. I have some other 18th century French prices with the same issue. Any ideas you might have would be gratefully appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1691 is pretty hard to do. My first advice would be to poke around with the literature on the subject and see if an author makes a particularly apt comparison to goods or wages at the given time.  For example "this would be equivalent to the average salaries of 100,000 Parisians" or "the typical castle in this era cost X".  See for example Jean Laurent Rosenthal's paper on credit markets in France 1660-1840.    The clearest road to modern currencies is pretty rough.  The Franc was decimalized in the 18th century, then subject to some bimetallism, then taken off the gold standard (and later returned to the gold standard only to be taken off again), then the Germans invaded, then devalued.  I would not recommend displaying prices from before 1900 in Euros.  Sorry I can't be of any more immediate help. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers - have gone for that; 230 livres was the typical labourer's wage, so it makes a nice round figure too! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks. And good job on the article.  Looks like a neat place and the sources you have added are good.  Take a look at Tutorial/Citing sources for some tips on formatting those sources so that readers can more easily see at a glance who wrote them and how you found them.  Not required, but you might find it interesting. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well...
I should point out that the user above had actually suggested that I do the research for an article that he wanted to create. I'm not sure that you are doing any favours by restoring the article. If he can show notability, that's great. If not, he's being encouraged to put in more work on an article that may well still fail the web notability test.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article right now has a cite to makezine, New Scientist and the BBC news. You deleted it without notice 3 minutes after creation.  If you think that is doing a favor to the user then maybe you might want to take a break from new page patrolling. Protonk (talk)

Talkback
Nathan2055talk-review 00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth...
....if you get any heat over this block, feel free to let me know about it and I'll go in swinging. I strongly endorse (in both my personal and work capacities) the block and thank you for going against the trend on ANI at the time and making the block. Civility is a huge thing, and I'm pleased to see your enforcement action. Please accept my personal thanks. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't gotten any feedback on the block (public or private), but I appreciate the sentiment. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD for YS Flight Simulation System 2000
Hi there. I have AfD'd the above article, as you're knowledgeable in the VG and particularly in flightsim, could you provide some input? Thanks. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Revolution Analytics
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring request
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. Recently, one of my articles was promoted to GA status, so I was advised to review an article in return, since there was a large backlog. I have started reviewing the article on European Central Bank and I have a feeling I'm committing a blunder! Please help me out and advise me on how I can review the article well. I saw that you have an interest in Economics articles, hence I thought of getting in touch with you. Please help. Regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I'll take a look at it. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So nice of you, thanks! Abhilasha369 (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I left some comments there. Comments on your review and comments about the article are kinda interwoven. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just read through them. Thank you for being so nice! :) I was genuinely under the impression that I'm violating all possible normative aspects of how a GA review "ought to be" done! So what is your recommendation? If a good majority of the issues get sorted, should it be given GA status?Abhilasha369 (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the major issues with the article are layout and citations. Once the citations have been improved and the layout has been restructured a bit to move the time sensitive stuff to an appropriate section I would pass it.  However, you are the one in charge. :)  If you feel your suggestions are being dealt with then you can pass the article.  What I would do in the future (if you're worried about giving a "bad" GA review) is lay out the rubric with some high level comments then make a subheading with specific suggestions and comments.  E.g. make lvl 4 headers like "style", "citations", "images" and look at each specifically.  GA reviews are often much easier if the editors involved with the article can quickly see what changes need to be made.  But you're doing good for your first review. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I will take a call after the nominator takes care of the issues raised. Currently its "On hold"... I have another favour to ask of you please, if it isn't too much of a bother... (This is your doing, you were too nice to me!) :-)      I would love it if you could go through my article on Ragnar Nurkse's balanced growth theory... I'm planning to nominate it for GA status... Do you think it's ready? Abhilasha369 (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't take a look at that one in detail yet, but I left some comments on Robinson Crusoe Economy. I'll look at the balanced growth theory later. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your constructive feedback! I really appreciate it. I will take care of the points you raised by the beginning of next week. "Clearly", you were spot on! :) Abhilasha369 (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Interested in being an online ambassador?
Hello, I found you on this page. I am a campus ambassador in Seattle and I am looking for an online ambassador for support. I liked your profile because you said that you were interested in "how educational technology influences and is influenced by technological and social shifts". I think we have a good arrangement because I work in person with another ambassador, the professor is very interested, and I am expecting the assignments to be light. We also have the support of the college librarians. Would you be interested in talking about whether you could be an online ambassador with us? If so, I would want to talk to you on the phone. Please email me if you are still available and interested. Thanks for your attention. Also, here is the course page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   19:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at the course page soon and get back to you. I am an online ambassador for one course currently (not yet updated on my page) and I think I can support one other, but I don't want to give you a complete answer yet. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Of course I have no idea how much work the class might expect or what an online ambassador might do, so you have a better idea of the burden of this than me.  The class is for freshmen and the class is like an English 101.  The students are learning to cite references and writing their first research papers.  If talking to me would help you make a decision with less work from you, then just email me with your number.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   04:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this message on my talk page. I just emailed you and would prefer to talk by email or phone for most things in the future.  I appreciate your support and consideration.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which email address did you use? I haven't seen a message yet. Protonk (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I emailed you through Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not grant me access to your address; they just forward my message.  If you did not get it, then you write to me so I will have your address.  I kept a copy of what I sent you and can forward that to you.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My email is just my username at gmail. For some reason it didn't go through.  Emailing me directly would be great. Protonk (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Dracorex says thanks!
If you're interested, here are some more ways you can help. Either way, your opinion's valued! Thanks! LoriLee (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs
Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors
Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:
 * Sociology of Poverty
 * Architectural Design
 * Introduction to Educational Psychology
 * Intro to Mass Communication
 * Psychology Seminar
 * Theories of the State
 * Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:


 * Housing and Social Policy
 * Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
 * History & Systems
 * Horror Cinema
 * Digital Media... just bits in a box
 * Composition I
 * Telecommunications Management
 * Training Systems
 * Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
 * Art and Terrorism
 * Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Shapley–Folkman lemma at FAC
Hi Protonk!

I nominated the article for FAC. Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Protonk!

Thanks again for your comments and suggestions, and of course your support. I noted that you had made two suggestions that I had not yet acted upon, explaining more about the Ekeland/Lemarechal results and also providing another example in economics. I did reword the "representation" sentence in the optimization section (Ekeland), but I have not (yet) provided a more intuitive explanation of what that means. Please review my responses and check whether I really did respond adequately.

Thanks again!

Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll come back later with some follow-up comments. As you might have learned from the A-class review, I'm out of my skin when talking about topology.  So I tried to offer what constructive criticism I could. Protonk (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You did a great job! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Double thanks
Thanks again!

I tried to respond to all your suggestions. I counted three outstanding issues. I believe I responded to two (more of an introduction to the applications, and more of an explanation of the surprise at negligible duality-gaps for non-convex separable problems).

I am not sure what you meant by another economics example: I honestly cannot think of a good one; I believe that Hildenbrand has an Econometrica paper using zonotopes (c. 1982), discussing economic data, but I don't think he mentions the Shapley-Folkman lemma. However, I did quote the one example from Ross Starr in a footnote after my gryphon example, so show that it is hardly original research.

Please give me more guidance, or please write that all your issues have been resolved at the FA nomination page, when you get a chance. (Maybe it could appear 11 October, the day after the Economics prize is awarded.)

Thanks again! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Robinson Crusoe went for a makeover
Hi! I have a few doubts regarding the peer review of the RC economy. I have been making edits according to your comments, but slowed down in between due to some personal commitments... Sorry! My doubts are posted on the talk page of the Robinson Crusoe Economy article. Thank you and regards, Abhilasha369 (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I left some comments on the page regarding your concerns. If you like you can reply to my comments line-by-line as you come up with questions or feel you have resolved issues.  This helps me tremendously in following your progress.  You can see an example of this posting style here. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I have replied to your comments on the talk page of the Robinson Crusoe Economy article - line by line. Regards, Abhilasha369 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from Alverno!
Hi! Students are getting going. We are saying hello. Jgmikulay (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

John McCarthy
Two things:

1) Globo, as the largest media conglomerate in South America, counts as a reliable source.

2) The news has, sadly, been confirmed by family and techchrunch

-Throwaway85 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For the first point, you'll have to convince me that Globo has a reason to know about the death other than from the hacker news thread or our article. Right now there is no information to support another conclusion over that. And the techcruch article cites only the hacker news thread which cites only our wikipedia article. I know this seems clunky and unnecessary, but we need to avoid circular references. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a moot point now, as 3 sources have been added and the claim restored. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:RISC OS Icon Bar 1988.PNG
Hi. How would you suggest proceeding with this and the other 2 bars listed at WP:UNDELETE, with reference to Graeme Bartlett's previous ? The commentary to be added to Icon bar will refer to graphical and layout differences. If the files are undeleted, I think any such usage discussions would be best placed at Talk:Icon bar. An alternative is obviously to upload new versions of these files but that seems unnecessary. Is it possible for you or another admin to please undelete the files without explicitly sanctioning their use? Thanks for your time. -- Trevj (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can undelete the file if you want to use it on 1-2 pages, but the concerns about excessive use apply for multiple article. Do you feel that use of this file in Icon Bar meets our requirements for non-free content? Protonk (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much but now dealt with. The images meet the NFCC and are used within a single article. It may be proposed to use a couple of them within other articles at some point in the future (e.g. RISC OS, History of RISC OS, Graphical user interface, History of the graphical user interface) provided justification is evident by relevant commentary in the text(s). Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject: Cities
Hello! I am trying to find data on the geographic area of towns and villages. The Wiki pages for these municipalities show an area and cite the US Census data, but I cannot find where on the Census page the data is coming from. Is it possible to find out where the data is on the census page by looking at the edit history or discussion page? Thanks, I know this is really specific! KellyBCuse (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)KellyBCuse
 * The Census Bureau term for what you seek is "land area". Mayhaps this link will be of help? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this message was their last edit since october. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Need a favor
Hey Protonk, hope all is well. I come asking for a favor. I recently made an edit and, not thinking I put some personal information in the edit summary. I hear these things can be made to go away, can you help? Thanks. The diff is here — GabeMc (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project
There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Economics in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Economics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you help or help me arrange help?
Hey Adam. A class here in Seattle is requesting some article review. I do not know what I should do - it is not my place to review their work because they are too close to me. I would love to get another ambassador to review their stuff and I in turn could review stuff for that ambassador. Could you post any comments, however small, on these articles or help me find someone who can? I posted in various places around Wikipedia also - I never thought about being able to arrange this before the class commented that they made articles and do not know how to get feedback. Their stuff is mostly okay, it just needs eyes and tags and a few suggestions. A description is here. Thanks, and call on me anytime.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   01:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't panic!
Good pick-up on my reference. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  15:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC) (mostly harmless)

GAN for Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
Hi, I just noticed your message on User:Rgkleit's talk page offering to do the GAN for Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. Before I saw your message, I started reviewing the article. If you don't mind, I'd like to proceed with the review; let me know if you have any objections. –Grondemar 03:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be my guest. I already left a detailed review (though not w/ the GA criteria in mind) on the talk page, but I would be delighted to see a second pair of eyes on it.  The GA nomination is yours.  If you don't mind I hope you could leave a message on User:Rgkleit's talk page letting them know you plan to review the article. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the note has been left along with some initial comments on the article. –Grondemar 04:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw those. This may be a little proud but if you want you can crib the detailed comments on the criticism section from my review. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just checking in to say thanks for taking the time to review this article and for making such helpful comments. I'm going to contact the student who put this together to alert them to the comments.Rachel Garshick Kleit (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for getting to the reviews a week too late. I saw the note on the 10th and mistakenly assume that like my school your grading period would even for another 1.5 weeks. Protonk (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that there hasn't been any editing activity on the article since the GAN review opened. I'm thinking that it is unlikely at this point that the professor or students will return to the article until January.  I'm currently leaning toward failing the review, with an encouragement to re-nominate once people are available to address the concerns.  If you have any objections to this let me know in the next day or so. Thanks. –Grondemar 07:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the article tomorrow. If I can make a substantive change I'll let you know and comment on the GAN where appropriate.  If I can't you can fail it. Protonk (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking too. Sorry I have been off-schedule... holidays snuck up on me.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We are nearing the end of the month (and the December 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive); I'd really like to have this review closed out one way or another in the next few days.  I must admit I haven't been paying too much attention to the Campus Ambassador programs, but has it been common for Ambassadors to take over reviews started by students and professors?  Generally I believe it is the nominator's responsibility to resolve concerns identified at a Good or Featured article review; they should be taking responsibility and not relying on others to bail them out. –Grondemar 21:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Signing without being logged in
That was me, yes :) Thank you for taking your time to give me that advice, I appreciate it very much. euyyn (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I didn't want to come across as threatening or creepy, but I felt I needed to ask. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview  23:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

PD-signature
Related to you closed as a keep:

I know that en-wiki may host files that Commons may not host. But I expect that an admin that dedide to keep files that has been reported as possibly unfree checks every single file and make sure that the files meet the requirements for files on Wikipedia.

If the files are OK for both Wikipedia AND Commons then they can be tagged with PD-signature but if they are not free in India (and therefore OK for Commons) then they need a copyright tag that informs users that the file is free in the US but not in India. Just like with PD-URAA and PD-HHOFFMANN and similar templates.

At the moment some files (only) have a PD-signature and some only have a Do not move to Commons. As far as I know a Do not move to Commons is not a valid license tag?

So please fix the files you decided to keep. --MGA73 (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You nominated dozens of files in one discussion. The fact that you nominated them doesn't obligate me to fix each and every one of them--or even one of them.  If you had nominated a few (or one) I would have been happy to add the appropriate tags after closing the debate.  But not in this case. Protonk (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes because they are all from India and therefore under the same copyright! Would you have prefered that I started 37 different requests? How on earth would that have made it easier?
 * But I agree that it is not the fact that I nominate them that obligate you to fix them. It is the fact that you close the DR that obligate you to make sure the copyright is ok. If you do not want to fix it you should not close it. --MGA73 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One request with 38 files or 38 files all with the same motivation, it doesn't matter. I am not obligated to make the changes you want made to those files because I closed the PUF discussion.  And I'm becoming less inclined to do it as a favor, frankly.  But I'll tell you what.  You tell me exactly what you want on each file--templates, text, whatever--and I'll put it on each so long as they are identical (meaning I don't have to make a decision on each of them, I can just copy/paste or script it). Protonk (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not supposed to do it as a favor to me but because one of your tasks as an admin is to protect Wikipedia and WFM against the harm of having copyvios or wrongly licensed files on Wikipedia. When an admin closes a DR other users trust and should be able to trust that the file is really free under the selected license.
 * If I was a legal expert in copyright in India I would have fixed the license and not send the files to Puf. I hoped that whoever closed the Puf knew more about it than me. So which tag you should add on the files depends on your reasons to keep it (as I said above). If you have any legal knowledge about the copyright situation in India it would be very nice if you would help update/comment Commons:Commons talk:When to use the PD-signature tag. --MGA73 (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the timeline as I see it. On december 4th you nominated 38 files for PUF, hoping to get a conclusive answer as to their copyright status on the english wikipedia.  Discussion languished (as it often does in PUF) but the basic gist of the conversation was that while commons has explicit guidance with respect to signatures, the english wikipedia does not.  On the 19th of December I closed the discussion noting both the consensus as I saw in and my own knowledge that even absent guidance on signatures the specific claim of copyright over signatures in india is a concern of note on commons, not here.  Some of these differences (though not all) are laid out here.  After I closed the discussion you approached me and demanded I "fix" the images I decided to keep.  I offered to update the images in a batch provided you could provide me with the appropriate information.  You have declined that offer and have insisted that my duty is to update the images myself.  I will not, for a few reasons.  First, I am not a legal expert on the subject so I have no specific insight as to what (if any) extra information is required.  Second, I am not in any way shape or form responsible for these images should they be moved to commons.  That responsibility falls directly upon the editor moving the images to the commons, should that be an inappropriate target.  Third, an admin closing a discussion is not responsible for the disposition of the subject of that discussion.  If this were an article and I closed an AfD discussion as "keep" I do not become responsible for preventing harm to the foundation from future edits to the article.


 * If you like I can re-open the discussion and you can wait until someone else closes it to lecture them about duty. Protonk (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok it seems we got a bad start here. Perhaps it is because I'm not a native English speaker. Anyway to keep it as simple as possible let's forget about Commons for a while. I agree that whoever moves files to Commons is responsible for checking.

According to the Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy all files on Wikimedia projects should either be free or meet the requirements of non-free use. Besides Wikimedia logos and screenshots there is absolutely no exceptions. All files that do not live up to the licensing policy must be deleted.

I see no "I think the file is ok" or "This is perhaps ok" in the resolution. Therefore we have to be convinced that the files are ok and if we are not then we must delete. Users can't just upload files and say "You must prove that the file is not ok". Anyone who wants to upload or keep a file must be able to prove that the file is ok.

I do not expect all users or all admins to be experts in copyright. But I expect that admins only close deletion request about copyright if they know what they are doing. And I expect the admins to correct any license errors if they close a deletion request.

If you are not sure you closed the puf with the right conclusion you should re-open. But don't do it just to give me a chance to lecture other admins... I hate doing that. --MGA73 (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm trying to cut back on smoking. It is probably making me a jerk.  I have an exam starting in a few minutes so I'll be brief.  What we have to go on is a proposed guideline on commons asking if signatures may be protected.  I think you were looking for a broad ruling in the PUF as to the status of Indian signatures.  I was looking to assess consensus about the files in question.  The two of us wanted very different things from the discussion so I'm not surprised that we were not seeing eye to eye afterwards.  I don't think I can offer such a broad ruling, nor do I think a closing admin (should I re-open it) is likely to.  If I thought another admin would offer such a ruling I would re-open the PUF without question.  However my guess is if I re-open the discussion it will languish for another few months and close without a meaningful resolution.  More later, I have to go. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of JamieMoyerInningsPitched.jpg
I wrote the portion of the "Practical Usage" section of Ternary numeral system which deals with the use of the ternary numeral system in baseball statistics. The image I uploaded was a tiny portion of a baseball card which included only a portion of 1 column of numbers. The statistics themselves are not copyrighted, but the image is an important compliment to the article because it shows a real, practical use of the ternary system in everyday life. That really seems like fair use to me. There is no alternative to getting my point across than showing something that was published in print. Can I get it undeleted with this fair use rationale? Tzadik (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately what we refer to colloquially as "fair use" on wikipedia isn't actually strictly analogous to US Fair Use in US law. The better name for it is our policy on non-free content.  In short we need to meet fair use in order to ensure that our articles and images aren't breaking copyright law.  However, in addition to that requirement we have more rules put in place to limit the number of non-free images and files used in our articles.  There are a number of rules but the basic idea is that if an image can't be replaced by text or another free image and measurably improves the article or is otherwise necessary then we can use it.  If it is not both of those things, we cannot use it.
 * I don't know anything about baseball cards or the Ternary numeral system so I can't help you directly but I would suggest the following. Try and find a source written about the use of this numeral system in baseball and add a section to the article summarizing that source.   You can also find a baseball card which is not under copyright--Wikipedia commons has a bunch.  But I don't think that a small segment of a baseball card will meet our non-free content policy.
 * If you still want that file undeleted you can ask for a more formal deletion review but I suspect such time would be better spent finding an article or book to use as a source since even with the picture of the baseball card the reader would have no clear understanding of how the card and the numeral system fit together. I hope this helps. Protonk (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote Parameter in citations
You contributed to a discussion either here or here. I'm attempting to summarize and move the discussion forward here. You may well have this page watchlisted, but as I am trying to carny on in a slightly different place, I'm letting everyone know who contributed.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"click for a larger view"
I'm addressing you as I found you at WP:GAN/M. I am in doubt about the "click for a larger view" caption under the image in an article I review. The relevant discussion can be found on WT:GAN and Talk:SMS Pillau/GA1. Could you please help me with this issue? I would be thankful for your comment on any of this pages. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Protonk,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
SarahStierch (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

GA advice
Hi! I see from here you're willing to look over an article, offer advice etc for a GAnom. I've been working on an article, Waterstones, trying to drag the standards up, but I really could do with an outside set of eyes who has some knowledge of how these things work - I fear you can get too absorbed in the article and not see the issues unless you have another opinion. If it's not a problem, could you have a look and offer some advice? Regards, Ran dom A rticles  11:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to take a look! Protonk (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts? Ran dom Articles &#124;&#124; Talk  13:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Commenting there now. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'll just do it on your talk page. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WikiLubber (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— —Critical  22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge RfC
Perhaps you didn't notice, but you !voted in an RfC that is a duplicate of an ongoing RfC, and thus will probably be proceedurally closed. If you would like your !vote to be counted, the relevant RfC is here: [] Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Protonk,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Mentor Request
Hi Protonk. Would you be willing to give a second opinion on my GA review of United States free speech exceptions? It was my first review. I think an issue with the article is that the prose is too "legalistic" for an article such as this that will attract interest from average readers, not just lawyers. Any assistance you can give would be much appreciated! Connolly15 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a few comments on the GA review! Protonk (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to thank you Protonk for your work on the review. This will be of tremendous help for me in revising and improving the article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your help! Connolly15 (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Battle 1.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Battle 1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 15:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hi Protonk! I am a student working on a Wikipedia article assignment and was wondering if you could take a look at my article and give me any feedback or advice you have. Here is the link to my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aparmit/Sandbox. Thanks!! Aparmit (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reading over my article! I have never edited or written a new article on Wikipedia before, so it was helpful to have an experienced Wikipedian help me out. I edited it the best I could according to your feedback. The article is now live on Wikipedia. Thanks again, I appreciate it! Aparmit (talk)

== United States Education Program: Wiki-Project Management -- Interview Request =Hello User:Protonk,

I am a student of Michigan State University working under Dr. Obar on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. Thank you for volunteering to be a part of our project; we are glad that you have expressed interest in participating in our interviews of Wikipedia admins. I apologize for the lateness of this message, but if you are still willing to join in our work, please email me using Wikipedia's email function so that we can contact you formally.

Vert3x (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool updates
Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new Article Feedback Tool.

Hand-coding

As previously mentioned, we're doing a big round of hand-coding to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!

Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the Signpost discussed) that messed with the tool.

New designs and office hours

Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out the oversighter view and the monitor view to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :).

We've also been working on the Abuse Filter plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a special office hours session tomorrow at 22:00 UTC to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).

I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Mentor Request
Hi Protonk. Would you be willing to give a second opinion on my GA review of Rabiosa? --Ozkithar Salas (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Battle 12.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle 12.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 23:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool office hours
Hey ; just a quick note to let you know that we'll be holding an Office Hours session at 18:00 UTC (don't worry, I got the time right ;p) on 4th May in #wikimedia-office. This is to show off the almost-finished feedback page and prep it for a more public release; I'm incredibly happy to have got to this point :). Hope to see you there! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool, Version 5
Hey all :)

Just a quick update on what we've been working on:
 * The centralised feedback page is now live! Feel free to use it and all other feedback pages; there's no prohibition on playing around, dealing with the comments or letting others know about it, although the full release comes much later. Let me know if you find any bugs; we know it's a bit odd in Monobook, but that should be fixed in our deployment this week.
 * On Thursday, 7th June we'll be holding an office hours session at 20:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. We'll be discussing all the latest developments, as well as what's coming up next; hope to see you all there!
 * Those of you who hand-coded feedback; I believe I contacted you all about t-shirts. If I didn't, drop me a line and I'll get it sorted out :).

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 release coming up - help us design a banner!
Hey all :). First-off, thanks to everyone for all their help so far; we're coming up to a much wider deployment :). Starting at the end of this month, and scaling up until 3 July, AFT5 will begin appearing on 10 percent of articles. For this release we plan on sending out a CentralNotice that every editor will see - and for this, we need your help :). We've got plans, we know how long it's going to run for, where it's going to run...but not what it says. If you've got ideas for banners, give this page a read and submit your suggestion! Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney FAC
I could really use some help on the prose and punctuation at the current Paul McCartney FAC, assuming you are too busy to help, is there anyone you can suggest that may be willing to pitch-in a few copyedits? ~ GabeMc   (talk)  21:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, then maybe you could give me some admin advice and/or then. I am right at the end of what will perhaps be a FA promtion for McCartney, and now a couple of users are re-starting the "The/the" edit war at his talk page. I hate to AfB, but I think this might be FAC sabotage, so the article cannot be promoted with lower-case "the"s. Please help! ~ GabeMc   (talk)  23:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm probably just overreacting. It's been a long and difficult FAC. Hope all is well your way, sorry to be a bother. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's likely the case. I went digging through the page history and the FAC comments. It looks like the perennial the/The war cropped up at the wrong time and doesn't seem to be making the page particularly unstable or scuttling the FAC. Best of luck! Protonk (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks but there's some light sabotage at the talk page IMO. Anyway, the article looks fantastic now, we had someone from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors go through it from head to toe, and they gave me great comments. You should take a look. Hope all is well with you. ~ GabeMc  (talk 10:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice to meet you!
Nice to meet you, Adam! I hope to see you again. Thank you for your feedback on my presentation. Nataev (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I am being harrassed, can you help?
That light sabotage at Paul McCartney turned into full-on defamation of character, harassment and bullying. Now I am getting my ass kicked over at ANI for filing a report on them. This is wrong IMO. Can you provide any help/advice? Thanks Protonk. ~ GabeMc  (talk 07:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

AFT and FA/FAR
Hey Protonk, enjoyed your talk about AFT. Did you consider the issue raised by cases like this? Also, probably not statistically significant, but some articles have had AFTv4 manually removed for various reasons, including at least a dozen FAs. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * that's an excellent question. I'm not 100% certain of the provenance of my data (boo!!! I know) but I have only the censored versions. That's censored in a statistical sense meaning that those ranking which were removed never appear (removed or otherwise) on the data dumps. With v5 I will be able grab at least the information that rating X exists but has been hidden or flagged as abuse. I know that a significant percentage of the text feedback were marked or hidden but I don't yet know if that subsequently hides the yes/no rating. The long and short of it: I need some more technical info before I model this element. Protonk (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

test question about something or other
test  how do you do something or other? --Summertime4 (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First we need to find out why those spaces vanished! Protonk (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania!
Hey Protonk, just wanted to drop by and say that it was so great to meet you in D.C., and I hope it won't be the last time we get to hang out and talk about Zizek and nuclear submarines. You rock! :D Accedie talk to me 23:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! I'm assuming based on your talk page that you'll watchlist mine for a bit. It was great to run into you and I had a blast talking to you. Wikimania is full of people but not many interesting, funny and direct people--we're mostly subject to the dismal triangle. Take it easy. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cripes, who wrote that article?! The B-schoolese... my eyes, gahhh! Accedie talk to me 23:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Frustrating because it basically boils down to "Fast, good or cheap; pick two." Which is xeroxed and pasted on the wall of every car repair shop and rocket engineering lab the world over. Protonk (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback newsletter
Hey all!

So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the channel, and another at  01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey again all :). So, some big news, some small news, some good news, some bad news!

On the "big news" front; we've now deployed AFT5 on to 10 percent of articles, This is pretty awesome :). On the "bad news", however, it looks like we're having to stop at 10 percent until around September - there are scaling issues that make it dangerous to deploy wider. Happily, our awesome features engineering team is looking into them as we speak, and I'm optimistic that the issues will be resolved.

For both "small" and "good" news; we've got another office hours session. This one is tomorrow, at 22:00 UTC in - I appreciate it's a bit late for Europeans, but I wanted to juggle it so US east coasters could attend if they wanted :). Hope to see you all there!

Fall 2012 Online Ambassador Program
Hi, Adam!

I know you're most likely not going to be a CA this term, but I thought you might want to participate as an Online Ambassador. If you're interested, please add your name to this census. Once the new class list is available, I will notify you guys so you can sign up for a class (or two) that interests you. I hope you're still interested in supporting these students for the coming term. Thanks! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Stuff
Hi Adam, a few things. Wikimania videos just went up in the wikimediadc channel at Youtube, and watching your talk at Improving Wikipedia II, I was reminded how much I enjoy listening to your presentations ... if you want to hash out anything you discussed there, feel free to drop by my talk page any time. I hope we'll run into each other at the next big conference. Also ... I see you opposed Pending Changes, so you may be happy to know that I'm pretty sure at this point, having spent a lot of time soliciting opinions, that it won't be around for long. I've mentioned some of the reasons in various posts at WT:PC2012, and again, feel free to drop by my talk page for more, any time. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me be the first to apologize for the poor audio quality. I promise you that in the room it was easier to understand me without the mic than with it. I hope I had the presence of mind to keep the mic up for my solo presentation. That video isn't up yet but should be soon, I think. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, looking forward to it. I can generally make out what you're saying without the mic. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The slides are here in case you're curious. Protonk (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So, update ... after a bit of blood, sweat and tears, Pending Changes Level 2 has been postponed, and if I can get some help developing alternatives in the next 6 to 9 months, I don't think it will be resuscitated. Also, I just now saw your talk on Article Feedback, FAC, etc. ... I guess my feedback is: come do something at FAC, anything that appeals to you ... put an article up if you like, and ping me so I can do some copyediting. I think you'll find the FAC process is a lot more transparent than it once was, and the experience may be useful for your research. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)
{||}

WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
{||}

Teuruarii IV
Could you give some opinion on the article Teuruarii IV and if it is good/feature article material? I am still in the process of editing it so I don't want to nominate it just yet.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I'll take a closer look at it in the next day or so but I wouldn't be shy about nominating it for GA status. Usually with history articles it takes a few weeks to find a reviewer so may have a fair bit of time to improve it. The only real risk is that when you get a reviewer, you'll want to be around to make changes or answer questions about the article. Protonk (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012
 * }

This is not a newsletter
This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey all :). A couple of quick updates (one small, one large)

First, we're continuing to work on some ways to increase the quality of feedback and make it easier to eliminate and deal with non-useful feedback: hopefully I'll have more news for you on this soon :).

Second, we're looking at ways to increase the actual number of users patrolling and take off some of the workload from you lot. Part of this is increasing the prominence of the feedback page, which we're going to try to do with a link at the top of each article to the relevant page. This should be deployed on Tuesday (touch wood!) and we'll be closely monitoring what happens. Let me know if you have any questions or issues :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 office hours
Hey all :). Just a quick note to say we'll be holding office hours in #wikimedia-office at 21:30 UTC this Thursday (the 29th) to show everyone the additional tools we're thinking of working on. All attendence and feedback is appreciated :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012
 * }