User talk:Protonk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

A job well done

Hey there, I wanted to give you a cheer for saving the article on Alchemy Systems. I was very, very impressed with the speed and eagerness you put into that process. You are one of the best folks we have here -- I greatly respect your contributions. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't speak so fast. :) But thank you for the praise. I knew that if it was you who nominated it you could be trusted to review the situation if facts change. That, to me, is really important. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I am Portuguese. As a people, we speak very fast and very loud. We don't really say very much of great importance, but the speed and volume of our speech pattern obscures what we are not saying. Seriously, I have no problem withdrawing AfD nominations if the article is changed for the better. I also congratulated Eastmain on his work there. I should ask: have you considered being an administrator? You would be great in that role. Cheers Ecoleetage (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that your approach to AfD nominations is great. As for me being an administrator, ask me in six to nine months. Protonk (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will mark my calendar! :) Until then, check this AfD out: [1]. This one is a real puzzler! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. That kind of article I might look at later tonight. History articles which might have OR/NPOV problems are very difficult for me to work with (unless they are blatant). My immediate recommendation would be to copy it to userspace and stub it to verifiable facts. Once you have done that, see if it can stand alone as an article and then see if that standalone article reflects the current "thesis" of the article that is in mainspace. If you do all that and find out it is ok, then the article can probably be salvaged. If, along the way, the process runs aground, see where it happened and what (like a name change or a merge) might solve it. If none of that works, it might need to be deleted. But that process is very difficult to undertake. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Designing Economic Mechanisms

Hello Protonk. Thank you for finding the sources. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good night

Well, my dog’s tail amputation surgery is but hours away in the morning, so, good night for now. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good luck good night. I've an exam tomorrow so I'll be up irresponsibly in the mean time. Protonk (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC) It good luck the right term? Best wishes, perhaps. Protonk (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Good luck on your exam! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fauquier

Ah, shoot first, ask questions later... ;)

It is largely a British/Commonwealth thing I think, but you will find planety of examples, even up to FA level, Brian Horrocks for example has a fine string of post-noms, and their use is specifically coverd in the manual of style, see WP:MOSBIO#Post-nominal initials. David Underdown (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bovet GAN

Greetings you damned human. ;) You said that you made comments in the GAN section. Having trouble finding them. I look forward to revising the article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Zoticogrillo (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I guess I'd like to thank you for your support in my ongoing RfA, that was a really helpful reply to make to the opposes since I couldn't really think of the words to do it. So thanks :) —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn, damn, damn...

...Rex Harrison would've loved your comment in the My Fair Lady (2009) AfD talk. Very, very funny stuff! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Update regarding hound surgery earlier this morning

File:Bandaged basset tail post surgery.jpg

Photograph of my basset hound whose tail is bandaged following surgery that removed a couple of inches of her tail.

The vet took off several inches of tail where the ruptured tumor was and removed 8 other elsewhere on her body. She's apparently not taking it too well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Best wishes, of course. Hope she comes through alright. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Me, too. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New section (out of the blue!)

		The Original Barnstar
		I've seen you around (not sure where first), and I'm not really a barnstar kind of guy, but reading your comments in various places, I find your approach to Wikipedia, its merits, and its detractions, to be both refreshing, honest, and for the most part, spot on. You are not too proud to beg, not too proud to admit you are wrong, and not too bashful to take "to task" someone else who is both proud (and probably) wrong. Keep up the good work! I'm glad you're here, you are necessary to the success of this project. Keeper ǀ 76 20:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Millennium Items‎ pictures response

Thank you for pointing out the AfD page. I found the pictures on just about every other yu-gi-oh related site so more than likely they are public domain, which I assume, means we can use them on the article.--Dil (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what your saying and if you have to, then take them down. I believe the site I got them from was a MSN group for Yu-Gi-Oh! and it's been so long since i've been on that site so I could not find the source for you.--Dil (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Hi Protonk. Thanks for your recent contribution to the ED article. You added this sentence: Julian Dibbell and others note the intersection between Project Chanology, Encyclopædia Dramatica and Anonymous. The citation you provided was a little unclear. I was unable to verify this information you're referencing at the site provided. Was it a conference paper? If so, was it published? If not, was it a comment the conference discussant made during the proceedings? Any clarifications you can make on this issue would be helpful. J Readings (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

BBCode non-admin closure

Thank you for the pointers on how to do a non-admin closure next time. I had never done one before, and attempted it based on what I had seen others do, and didn't even realize there was a guide! Tarinth (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Thread

I've undone you. I did that purposely, after the person who had initiated that thread didn't feel that I've resolved it properly, so I added the nowiki tags. I noted it further down in the thread. Thanks for taking the initiative though. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Question about reverting page moves

Hello, Protonk. You have new messages at SchfiftyThree's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rollback granted

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! PeterSymonds (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ace Combat

I would be fine with going for a merge. Since it was Judgesurreal who nominated that article, though, I felt I should give him the option to continue to AFD or not. I'd suggest telling Judgesurreal you think a merge is a better option if you feel strongly about it. However, Jerry's reply had me a little confused and we'll see what happens when he clears that up. Pagrashtak 00:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of a merge, perhaps we should at least userfy the following to see if there is any worthwhile mergeable information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organizations of Ace Combat and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superweapons of Ace Combat? I would think something like the superweapons one might have information relevant to the militaries information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask judgesurreal. I could go either way. As the articles are now, a merge is nigh impossible. The larger ones are enormous and the information in them is highly granular. I don't want to create some omnibus article filled with the content from the org/nation/militaries/weapons lists, that would be both unwieldy and unhelpful. So I'm asking around. I'd rather not push for a DRV or to have the 'no consensus' articles moved to be relisted. I respect the decision that happened but part of me wants to just wait a few months and nominate the articles again if they haven't seen improvement. In order to avoid that, I'm asking around for some merger proposals. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a coherent article could be one that is divided as follows: Nations of Ace Combat is the main article organized by nations, which themselves are divided into their militaries, which would of course be subdivided by characters and weapons. We need not get carried away in the descriptions, i.e. only include those nations, characters, and weapons that are directly mentioned in reviews and previews. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. Let's see what judge has to say and then we'll take that idea to the project. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to cut down the military page, but I can almost guarantee I'll be reverted. There's very little that needs to be kept there. I wouldn't keep any of the huge weapon lists. I don't find statements like "Jeeps[14], Strykers[15], M60 Pattons[16], ZSU-23 Shilkas[17], M198s[18], and T-80UDs[19] appear only in cutscenes." that useful or interesting. There's a lot of comparisons to the real world, such as "The Emmerian Air Force closly resembles the U.S. Air Force in Weapons, Uniforms, and Rank." Is there a source to back these up, or it is pure OR? Pagrashtak 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I find that if you are judicious about what gets cut and you are clear in the edit summary that it is OR, you don't get reverted as much. Let's cut down on it so that it can fit into the nations article. If we get reverted we'll see if we can't reach some consensus on the talk page. Even some of the 40K articles got winnowed down eventually. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My gut instinct is to remove weapon lists, but that won't leave very much. How do you feel about that? For example, take a look at Militaries of Ace Combat#Erusian Air Force and tell me how much you would leave. Pagrashtak 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How's about this? Protonk (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Close to what I was thinking. Pagrashtak 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In such a merge, I still suggest we look at this for additional mergeable content. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to focus on the military article first, then I'll take a look. I've done the first four sections—taking a break now. Let me know what you think. Pagrashtak 18:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Looks good. I posted a merger proposal section and notified the VG project. Protonk (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I created User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Userfied articles (obviously just getting that page started) to facilitate some of the merge efforts regarding articles in my userspace. You'll also note that I have requested another Ace Combat article be userfied, but have not yet heard from the admin (User:Singularity). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Can you cross post this on the merger discussion. I'm going to work more on the ones in article space. Hopefully we can pare them down to the point where one (or maybe two) article will hold the details in a clear and straightforward manner. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

United States Navy Recruit Training Command

I like what you are doing with the RTC article. It is refreshing to see someone try to help instead of destroy.Rossusna02 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the info I posted on Xymax talk page- The changes you made to the article are less accurate. It is not "The" Recruit Training Command; it is just Recruit Training Command. Also, Recruit Training Command is a Tennant Command not an organization. I have undone your changes to restore the article to a more accurate state. If you have further concerns please feel free to let me know. Rossusna02 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I've never seen it take this long, have you? Landon1980 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

transwiki to Wiktionary

Hi! All twikis have to go through process so they can be imported with history to the wikt. Must be done by a wikt sysop or sysop automation. See Template:Copy to Wiktionary.

In this case please also see: wikt:Appendix:Military slang. Robert Ullmann (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is already tagged as I see. When we get it we'll put it in an appendix probably. Robert Ullmann (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Origins of Value

So this is worth reading? I've not heard much about it... but always looking for recommendations. Fun read? --JayHenry (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuking friges

I believe you participated in that discussion. Anyway, this article may amuse you. After a student asked me about that scene today, I just had to look it up online. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Terra Nova (blog)‎

Upon rereading the article, I do see that significance was asserted. My apologies. --Seascic ^T/_C 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

I am not willing to respond to or even acknowledge insulting and inaccurate assumptions of bad faith and nor would I expect anyone else to do the same. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak. That's all I can say. They weren't insulting you and neither was I. Since you can't delete it here I'll say it. I lost a lot of respect for you today. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That goes both ways then. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Related, I have immunity to wall of text and a +7 enchant to my WP:AGF spell. I'd like to continue the discussion, but I'll apparently have to find a new place to do so. I'll drop the response that was to be on my talk page and you can have a look at it if you'd like. 83.203.178.78 (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can find the thing I was responding to here. It was going to be dropped at the bottom. C'est la vie. 83.203.178.78 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC) My talk page now has everything needed and none of the AGF fluff that derailed the first discussion. 83.203.178.78 (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage

Thanks - it's a bit difficult to have a conversation when someone keeps reverting it off the page! --Prisongangleader (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No big deal. Just didn't want it to turn into an edit war. :O Protonk (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the talk page of this article, I appreciate your hard work. Inclusionist (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, wikipedia needs more valiant peace making editors like you. Inclusionist (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously removed comments. Contents struck upon request

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

Protonk, lets put this is perspective:

First, I originally removed his comments alone and moved them to his talk page, because I wanted to talk about the sock puppery and wikistalking in a non-public form. I retained your comments.

As mentioned on the talk page, Prisongangleader is an editor with less than 20 edits, who shows all of the characteristics of a sock (see talk page)

He wikistalked me from an AfD in which he voted to delete the page.

On the other hand, I fully support the spirit and mission of Inclusionists, my entire edit history, over 25,000 edits supports the mission of inclusionists. I have wrote essays, tried to change policy, and strongly advocated inclusionism. I have made a lot of powerful enemies, and Prisongangleader is not the first sock to attack me.

I just finished a huge edit war with a deletionist on Business plot. I called for a third party, and the third party got hung up on my NPA violations (calling the editor a vandal). I said this because I didn't want to discuss this article with someone who was obviously ignorant of the subject, and who contributed nothing to the article.

I then was forced to spend hours on this deletionist. He finally left, embarrassed and humiliated because he knew so little about the topic and he had made some really ignorant statements.

So here we have this case. A very probable sock, who clearly wikistalked me to this article, from his sparce edit history shows that he has views opposite of inclusionism. And another seasoned editor, yourself, focuses completely on my WP:NPA, and ignores the other issues (sock, wikistalking, edit history intent).

Which then requires me to take massive, time consuming steps to neutralize the damage of this editor. Deja vu.

As you mentioned, this merge of ICU is "no big deal". So why is Prisongangleader making such a big deal out of it? Does he have the best interests of inclustionist at heart? He did after all, wikistalk me from a AfD which he supported being deleted. Inclusionist (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I wanted to remove those comments because of possible WP:NPA violations. I apologize to user:Prisongangleader for those comments, even though he was later booted as a sockpuppet. Please remove those comments to foster healing. Inclusionist (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as you are granted wide latitude to administer your talk page, as am I. I'll strike them but I would prefer they remain here. If you feel strongly that striking them isn't enough we can place them under a {{hidden}} template. I'm disinclined to remove them entirely. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your warning on User talk:Realkyhick page. I cut and pasted his template from my page, which he had added to my page.

I archived my talk page after, so I will WP:AGF that you did not see that template warning which User talk:Realkyhick gave me.

Now that you are aware of what happened, I await the first warning of User talk:Realkyhick on his page.

BTW, reverting an edit warring is a policy violation, which you may want to bring up too with User talk:Realkyhick [2] If you are not familiar with the policy, I will be happy to provide you with it, I think it is on my talk page.

I believe that for administrators to be taken seriously on wikipedia, they must be fair in the use of their administrative powers. LOL, thats the ideal anyway. The reality, I have found again and again do the completely the opposite.

I removed all of the potential NPA violations which you allude to, and apologized to the indefinetly banned sock, which despite being banned, you have been defending. Inclusionist (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I already 'warned' reallyhick that you were not a vandal. the first warning was removed when he reverted your template message to him (which was pretty bad form). I've since replaced it. I don't want Reallyhick to call you a vandal and I've tried to make that clear. If he persists I'll continue to comment. But by the same notion, I'm not bound by any equal time limits here. Simply because I warned you about your disruptive comments does not mean I am required to warn everyone. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, he's not banned. Only blocked. and that block has been placed by the blocking admin on AN/I for review. I don't appreciate the insinuation that your last comment presents one bit. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Inclusionist

Sorry I deleted your remarks - got caught up in the user warning he placed on my talk page with my forged sig, That action alone indicates bad faith. I am by no means convinced of good faith in Inclusionist's actions, despite his long record here. He seems to have hijacked two other projects on directed them toward his own without conducting any meaningful discussion whatsoever. He posted something resembling a request to merge on the WP:WICU]] talk page, but within a very brief time later, he went and redirected the talk page to the WP:ARS talk page. I don't know what the heck he is up to, but he needs to stop immediately to give everyone concerned a chance to comment. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Protonk Sorry I deleted your remarks - with the idefinetely banned sock.

User:Realkyhick Sorry for the warning template, a copy of yours. I will let it slide now, because Realkyhick, I can see that you really seem to have the best interest of wikipedia at heart, but please keep in mind that it is against wikipedia policy to delete warnings. Inclusionist (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait hold on. You left him a fake warning signed in his name and he deleted it. YOU deleted at least 4 warnings send by other editors. I'm not aware of any policy that requires users to keep warnings on their talk page (I may be wrong), but accusing him of violating this hypothetical policy is...astoundingly brash. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Its behind us now.

I could argue but won't: not because your arugment is sound, but because its pointless. I stand by what I said.

I kindly ask that you please don't post on my talk page again. Inclusionist (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly not behind us. "I could argue but won't: not because your arugment is sound, but because its pointless." why is this a good thing to say? how am I supposed to feel about that? Should I interpret it as "well, you're an idiot, but at least your point is moot." or just "responding to this question is beneath me"? Is there a good faith interpretation I'm missing? I won't post on your talk page (because you asked me to), but I want some answers. You are free to refuse to give them to me, but I would be happier with them. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I opt to "free to refuse to give them to me" if you wish to talk with me, do it on the article talk page, thank you.

I meant that discussing this off the project page is behind us. Inclusionist (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this a really puzzling situation, Protonk. It's a bit sad that User:Inclusionist bailed as he did, it would have been better to just say, "Oops! Sorry." I didn't see the situation as being that you were trying to get him blocked, which was a view he expressed in the comments he removed from AN/I, only to get him to stop what you considered uncivil behavior. You did file the checkuser on PGL. You argued against his block, because you saw it as having insufficient evidence behind it, for an indef block. That's debatable, but .... your position wasn't unreasonable. It was, in fact, Fredrick day, but I don't know that you could have been expected to know that. I should really have seen it immediately, but it actually took me a couple of hours to remember that I had just written about prison gangs in connection with Fredrick day, the day before he registered that account. As I mentioned in one of the AN/I reports, IP 87.114 is one of Fd's favorite IPs, there is a long list at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. Anyone who knows Fd would spot it immediately. --Abd (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

YEah, I was pretty confused about it too. I can kind of empathize...to a point. There are some situations that a person can get themselves into through stubbornness that are awfully difficult to be extricated from. As you get further down the rabbit hole, it is easier to see good faith opposition as territorial or conspiratorial. At some point it is "easier" to bail out than to apologize and confront the reality that you might have erred. Error is hard to acknowledge. I know this because it is hard for me to acknowledge it. I hope he comes back and has a better view toward good faith opposition. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. Protonk (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		For being a straight-forward, accurate reviewer who is also kind and encouraging. Keep up the good work! Eustress (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Noticed your patience and help with review of Víctor J. Montilla. Thanks!

I have nothing in particular to say right now, so I'll just say thank you for your edits here since we Wikipedians don't say that often enough. --Kizor 08:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser note

Hey, just to give you a heads up, when you make checkuser requests you also need to list them, which I have done for you. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! All these new bureaucracies...despite the admonition that wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I screwed up an IfD the other day (which neded happily with an OTRS ticket showing release of copyright so we could keep the images) and didn't notice it for like 12 hours. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

About Fredrick day

There is a new sock of Fredrick day, Frederick day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who acknowledged being Fredrick day in a post to User talk:DGG, not that it wasn't already obvious. He acknowledged it yesterday, but hasn't been blocked yet. He's been very active, as you can see by contribs, and most of what I've seen has been legitimate and not too contentious, he's been dealing, in particular, with one very messy article on Iraq misappropriations. I just reported this to AN/I, for general information, but thought you might like to drop him a note. If I do, he'll freak out! --Abd (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Before responding t o him, I checked the previous record, and decided to assume good faith. My interactions with him have been perfectly reasonable, FWIW. DGG (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I would much rather he just throw up an unblock request. honestly, even given some of the things he said as KoC/Alle (which never were that bad), I can imagine an admin allowing it, assuming he pointed to a history of reasonably good contributions. I'm not sure what to call the naming. Flagrant or repentant. Protonk (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your help at AfD

Hi Protonk, thank you very much for the help you gave at the Anita Gurung AfD discussion. I really appreciate it! And also thank you very much for the category link. I knew there was a special way to do it but couldn't remember how and couldn't find an example at the time. Anyway, thanks :) Maedin (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Unitedstatesafter105apocalypse.JPG

Self-described as a screenshot of the NBC produced miniseries 10.5: Apocalypse; not PD-releasable. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fair use for United States after 10.5 Apocalypse

The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as:

1. No free use alternative is likely to exist.
2. It is of much lower resolution than the original (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality).
3. The photo is only being used for informational purposes.
4. Its inclusion adds significantly to the article because it shows what the producers of the film intended everyone to see.--Subman758 (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case WP:NFCC #9 says that it can't be used outside of article space. Also that information above should be placed in a fair use template on the image page and the PD-released template should be removed. Protonk (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly please leave instructions for to do just that, or if you wouldn't mind do it your self, and tell me how its done. I'm still trying to figure out all these code things, it seems when I fix one thing, I screw something else up. Also if you know anything about article tables, if could help me figure something out with them I would greatly appreciate it. I have a header text at the top of the table, and would like to increase its size, and center it. However everything I try doesn't want to work.--Subman758 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I have added what you requested for the photo, but you may want to check it to make sure I didn't dick it up.--Subman758 (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Let's start with the image bit. the easiest way to do this (in my opinion) is to just upload a new version of the image. This brings up a wizard where you can pick and choose options (resolution, use, etc). If you don't do that, you can go to our list of fair use templates. Adding the appropriate one of those (which you seem to have done) will help categorize the image and provide some boilerplate rationale for why it is ok to use it. Remember that (and you've done this) you must provide some specific reasoning beyond the boilerplate to use a fair use image in an article (e.g. this picture shows what the US looked like in a way text cannot replace...etc).

Header and tables. First check out the cheatsheet for some quick table references. I would send you to Help:Tables but I think that is written with a coder in mind and it doesn't really help if you just want to hack something together. I mention the cheatsheet because if you go to the 'edit page' menu there, you will see a pretty well put together table (the one that the cheatsheet comprises). The table is done as a wikitable, so no HTML. It is possible to build a table just like that from HTML. Which way you do it is really up to you. Once you dig a little into what makes that cheatsheet table (or any other table) tick, go back to Help:Table and some of the stuff will seem a lot more approachable. As far as header texts specifically, you can declare them with the markup <h2></h2>, <h3></h3>, <h4></h4> or the biggest: <h1></h1>. Hope that helps! Protonk (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

USS Minnesota is (SSN-784) While USS North Dakota is (SSN-783)

I stumbled across this. It turns out the USS Minnesota will (SSN-784) while the USS North Dakota will be (SSN-783). Here is a reference for that. http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/05idx.htm --Subman758 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Various DRV's

I have left you a message on my talk page. — OranL (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

I replied on my talk page and also started a thread at Template talk:Afd2#Relisting debates. — Scientizzle 19:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To Kill The Potemkin

I'm confused. You start off by saying that reviews alone aren't enough to establish notability for a book. And then three are added to the article and you withdraw the AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the author of the review for the LA times tipped it for me. Some of the reviews were crap, but the Washington Post (go lexis-nexis) was reasonably close to criteria 1 of WP:BK. The LA Times review was by Edward Beach and carried some reasonably commentary about the book itself. These don't rise to the level of scholarly criticism or review, but that probably sets the bar too high. When I nominated the article, I saw 3-5 piecemeal reviews out there that would never have met WP:BK. After the nomination I noticed that it was bound as a reader's digest book for 1987 and that it was a bestseller. To me that helps the case along to keep this as marginal. However, I'm sure that this article will stick around in its current form forever, since it is not threatened by deletion. Does that shed a little light on things? Protonk (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I don't have Lexis-Nexis so I can't read the reviews in question. Also, it irks me that the author is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't see it as a 'this red link will be made into an article' kind of red link. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Whoops, gotta link to the right ed beach.  :) Protonk (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hockney-Falco thesis review

Thanks for the excellent review. Your comments will be very helpful when I get a chance to expand the article.--ragesoss (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed with 30 in support, 28 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks again for the support!

—CycloneNimrod^Talk? 15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Help if you would

I noticed that you placed a delete request on the tension rings page. Would you be able to help me fix that page? Yesterday, I decided to improve the tension ring wiki entry, and at some point, I moved the page to tension rings. The history moved to the new page, but the old tension ring page remained. It would not let me undo my move, but I would like to undo the move from tension to tension rings. The problem is that the history is attached to the tension rings page and not the tension ring page. I hope you can help. ActionMan12 (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Warned 92.22.116.55

I put a warning on the talk page for 92.22.116.55 also. A.C. Norman (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Minjo brotherhood

Heh. You're right. I suppose there is a reason why, when I type "m" in the edit summary bar, the first result from Firefox's auto-complete thingy is "Maybe it would help if I paid attention..." Thanks for telling me, and for telling me so gently. I guess I'm more tired than I thought I was. I'm going to bed now. See you tomorrow! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

4chan

Hi, thanks a lot for your comments at Talk:4chan/GA1! I've responded there and have also put up some thoughts on a new article layout which I'd appreciate some comments on. Cheers. —Giggy 08:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rescue tag on Ultramarines

that edit summary was totally inappropriate, as was the presumption that removing a tag from an article that isn't going to be "rescued" in any sense of the word is an error. Please explain how you felt my removal of the tag was an error and it deserved only the word "fixed" in response. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The AfD is still ongoing, various ideas are under discussion, and so if someone places a tag on article someone else should not just remove it. It would be like me removing the AfD tag saying "it's not going to be deleted". Please let things work their course out. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure why this belongs on MY talk page and not yours, but whatever. This is the 'rescuing that has been going on in this article. ARS applies to articles that are within the guidelines of the encyclopedia, but lack of effort would lead them to be deleted. Every SINGLE other 40K article of this kind has been redirected, merged or deleted. Unless this article represents some departure from the norm, I don't how things are different. The placement of that tag serves no purpose for the ARS project and you don't own the tag or the article. If your want it to stay on the article you've got to provide some justification for it. So I'm going to remove it again, as you haven't provided any explanation as to why the article is to be rescued. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing in the AfD various ideas as to what to do with the article. I believe that because it is titular in nature that it could be improved by using reviews of the books provided. The purpose the tag serves is that I am requesting help from others in that effort and as the other articles have been merged and redirected that suggests that the material is perhaps somehow salvageable and I would like others to see if they can help in these efforts. Please do not remove that tag again as that is really inappropriate to do. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles#Ultramarines. If you notice we have a list of the various templated articles and so if you ever have any comments on them, please add to the discussions there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing this at AFD because the article is going to get deleted--just like every other article that goes up for deletion. Just because someone, somewhere wants to keep the article doesn't automatically make it a great candidate for rescue. Also, {{rescue}} isn't a binding process; nothing compels us to "finish what we started" if we decide an article doesn't need the tag. Somehow every other 40k article went up for deletion, had a rescue tag applied and nothing happened. But whatever. fuck it. Put whatever tag you want on the article. And treat me like shit when I remove it. fuck. this is why dealing with you is so monumentally frustrating. I put a reasoned explanation as to why a tag should be removed from an article and you revert it like I inserted a fucking typo. Like it was a fucking spelling error or something. Like I'm stupid. then I come to YOUR talk page and ask for an explanation and you move the discussion here like it is my fucking problem. When I ask for an explanation you give me the same song and dance you give EVERYONE at AfD, about "titular natures", "google searches" and some other stuff. then you say something like "Please do not remove that tag again as that is really inappropriate to do" as though this is not a good faith disagreements about the merits of that tag going on the page but that I've vandalized the page or something. God damn. This whole exchange. almost EVERY exchange you have had with me. It just oozes contempt. I didn't want to write an email response to earlier you explaining as much because I felt terrible about your dog and I didn't want to pile on, but this really takes the cake. This whole thing. From you grandmothering me at AfD to you rewriting my WQA about you to include me, to you lecturing me (yes, it was lecturing), to you blanking my talk page comments. It's so frustrating. I've walked away from my computer countless times seething in anger because you made some condescending remark and civilly appended "sincerely" to it. I've written posts like this and hit the cancel button because it wouldn't be fair to open up on you like this or because I figured over time you might respect me. But I'm done. It isn't worth the blood pressure increase. Oh, and before you take umbrage, none of the above is meant as a personal attack. You might consider it uncivil, but I don't. It's my talk page and I'll voice frustration where it is appropriate. Also, feel free to NOT leave a diff laden response about how I treat you like crap. If you decide to ignore that advice I'll probably leave it be, but I might just delete it. I'm sure I've behaved terribly to you. I'm sure I've gotten into arguments with you and belittled your reasoning ability and your position (mostly because I BOGGLED, as I do to this day, that you could hold such positions). So that's it. I'm done. I don't care anymore if you respond to my posts at AfD or DRV. I don't care anymore if you revert my changes like I've introduced an error into the text. roll them back for all I care. I'm done. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not looking to "win." Generally speaking I am increasingly baffled by what I see at AfDs and as I've said before a few editors in some five day discussion undoing perhaps months of edits just doesn't seem "right" to me. At times it looks downright elitist or condescending when I see some of the dismissive comments in AfDs about the varying opinions of notabiliy. As such, I try to respond to edits in a manner that they seem to merit. I am not going to encourage or concede to these types of comments. In AfDs, I frequently see outright dishonest claims of "not notable" or "sources don't exist" and yes, from the same people and no, I'm not going to call anyone specific out now, but I do what I can to maintain as much civility as possible. Some of these though that seems to just disrespect all the edits people volunteered to make to an article merit a certain kind of response. And I am not going to pretend that absurd or inaccurate comments aren't just that. I can tell in AfDs who and when their comments are actually being made in a constructive manner or if they're just bent on deleting the article (i.e. that type of article) and unwilling to concede in any manner whatsoever even if sources are produced or if they have an unreasonably limited view of notability that goes against maybe thousands of editors and readers who worked on the articles in good faith and come here for that information. I take AfDs very seriously as we can wind up diminishing our value as a comprehensive reference and maybe even turn off editors and readers. Now, most of these Warhammer ones seem to be acceptable to even those wanting to delete to be redirected, which we just don't need AfDs to do and so it seems (to be honest) disruptive when they are nominated for deletion instead of boldly redirected or discussed to be redirected first or instead. And it didn't help with the whole sock account thing with a bunch of those ones. Thus, I believe they can be rescued in some manner, whether it's a merge or even a redirect without deleting the edit history. To address your other comments, I would never just allow an unproductive WQA to proceed (who would?), nor am I willing to dignify or legitimize certain comments that I know will not lead to any worthwhile exchange. And words no matter how harsh are unlikely to really get to me (if you've experienced some of what I have off-wiki in my real life and I really hope that you haven't, typed comments would not bother you either), which is why no matter how much anyone does try to insult me, it is unlikely to get an actual rise out of me. I know you are capable of helping to improve articles and I know you are capable of being nice and as such when I see you helping to improve articles or fight vandalism or being nice, then you certainly are going to and will continue to be treated with respect.  :) Have a pleasant night and --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Unbelievable. None of what I wrote about was about afds in general (with the possible exception of my 'boggling' at your reasoning). the bulk of what I said above was about you treating me with contempt. And that's the response I get. AWESOME. Protonk (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd be far more apt to get respect if you didn't do things like just ignore my polite remarks at the end of the above intended to make you both feel better and end the discussion on a pleasant note and instead go down the list of AfDs I recently participated in only to argue in opposition. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!~?!?!?!?!?! You've got to be kidding me. Your polite remarks? I'm stalking you? Whatever man. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "I know you are capable of helping to improve articles and I know you are capable of being nice and as such when I see you helping to improve articles or fight vandalism or being nice, then you certainly are going to and will continue to be treated with respect.  :) Have a pleasant night and..." And yes, it is suspicious that after commenting with defensive hyperbole to me above here, your next five posts are in AfDs after me... I keep trying to be nice to you and to assume good faith as I believe in giving people as many chances as possible, but some these strange reactions are dumbfounding. All the same, I'll continue to be nice to you and respectful anyway. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

....whatever. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that hard to be friendly with each other. If I'm willing to be, I don't see why you wouldn't be.  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already tried. As I said above, I'm done trying. I'm not 'stalking' your AfD contributions in any sense given that both of us contribute so heavily in that forum. I made a last attempt to point out that dealing with you is enormously frustrating because you REFUSE to consider than my contributions have value except when you dictate that they do. In response to that you told me basically the same thing you always tell me. that AfD is important and that you "know" when people are contributing in good faith. And that you wouldn't "dignify" my comments or that my WQA was "unproductive". this is what I'm talking about. But keep it up. Keep up the smiling and the comments about how "you know I can be a good contributor". I DONT FUCKING CARE ANYMORE. get off my talk page. don't talk to me anymore. I don't want to have anything to do with you. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You have me a bit confused. You say above that you want nothing to do with me and after I read that I held off replying here and yet you still commented in the most recent DRV I started and seem to be okay going back and forth with me there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because I don't want to have anything to do with you doesn't mean I'm going to sit by while community discussions occur. It is your decision to reply to me in those venues. If you don't want to, don't. If you do want to, do. but don't assume that we are buds or that I have a shred of respect left for you. Because you've lost it.

It's hardly wikistalking, Le Grand, which is "following an editor to another article to continue disruption." "Following" you to an AfD to forward an argument that differs from your own does not meet the "disruption" piece; rather, it's a editor whose interpretation of policy and guidelines varies from yours and who wants to articulate that viewpoint in AfD. This is one of the reasons the "User contributions" links is available. So, lay off the hyperbole, please. --EEMIV (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please stop with the hyperbole. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. so now you're doing the same shit you got told not to do a month ago. and on my talk page. after I asked you to not post on it. that's GREAT. keep it up. Protonk (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense comments made unconstructively as the one I replied to above get replies asking them not to use hyperbole. I'm not going to humor ridiculousness. Protonk, if you don't want me posting on your talk page, then fine, but at the same time, don't also make it a point to post in DRVs I start, especially when the lone DRV you commented in for a few days happens to be the one I started (there's plenty of others worth commenting in...). Please don't send mixed signals. Don't say you want "nothing" to do with me, but then go ahead and comment in threads I started (it's one thing if it's a discussion someone else started). If you want to discuss with me, fine, if you don't, then, I'll respect that, but please don't be uneven in that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not amking it a point to comment in your DRV. it is a DRV. it is a call for consensus from the community. I thought we went over this before. there isn't some quota I'm required to fill of "AfD's that wikipedia's arch-inclusionist hasn't commented in" before I'm allowed to comment on DRV's or AfD's that you ahve participated in. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. You don't need to have the last word here. Don't respond to this thread just so you can have the last word. I'm up to the point of deleting your comments as they come in on this page. PLEASE stop posting here. Stop. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10