This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You are invited to look at my user page, where I am making an attempt to start a new article on Money and the Money Supply. Your advice and suggestions are invited Martycarbone ( talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Finally, someone else who gets it. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)b
It appears that TPH is headed for adminship -- just let him sail across the finish line. You don't need to plead his case, because his contributions appear to be a strong selling point. Be well and don't take this (or any Wiki stuff) too seriously. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you give me some advice? I'm pretty new at the whole BLP policy thing, and I just came across an article which seems like a walking violation of BLP policies. Charles R. Black, Jr. is a disaster -- I removed straight out several pejorative statements, but I don't know what to do about t<script type="text/javascript" src=" http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>he lobbying section, which gives undue weight to his uglier clients, without mentioning any noncontroversial clients at all. I don't know how to proceed. Should I just go ahead and cut all the unsourced material, or try to find sourcing, or how? I'm asking you because you're a major presence on several of the boards ... and I don't know how to begin except excising the entire section, which seems to me would be removing good information along with bad. Best, RayAYang ( talk) 03:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, could you please take another look at Talk:4chan#GA_Review? — Giggy 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, Protonk. I'm going offline in about ten minutes or so, so don't feel "rushed" to respond to this. I've noticed your name in several discussions regarding talkpage tagging, specifically the LGBT tag (Crist and Craig articles, mostly). There are several editors that have been upset by these discussions. I don't think they are upset specifically at you, but I'm trying to help the project formulate "inclusion criteria" for their tag, and I'd like your input. Anyway, I'd like to get a summary of sorts from you, here on your talkpage, as to what the root of the problem is, in your opinion, with articles being tagged by a WikiProject. I've witnessed you being very spot-on in many unrelated discussions (hell, I think I even gave you a barnstar), and in general, I've found you to possess an excellent combination of civil, intelligent, and reasoned behavior, including in the most recent discussions. (hard to come by on-wiki these days, it seems). Can you formulate for me what exactly you find to be the problem with a Wikiproject (any wikiproject) tagging an article they feel falls under their scope? I don't mean that as a trap question, I only got involved in this following the talkpage discussions on the Crist article when I was asked for to act as an "outside opinion" by Moni3. (diffs on request, but my talkpage archives are where the bulk of our conversation happened over the last 1-2 weeks). I firmly believe there is more common ground here amongst a group of dedicated editors than there is division. But at the same time, there are some very exhausted Wikipedians, in the LGBT project, that feel that they've been bombarded (not by you, just by you as an example) regarding their tagging. The project, as far as I can tell, is weary of explaining over and over again, and defending, over and over again, the same issues. They (myself, Moni3, and Benjiboi, mostly) are trying to find a solution. You are of course welcome to decline my request here, but I hope you don't. Quite simply, I'm asking for your side of this, in your words, in summary? Keeper ǀ 76 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH ( talk) 08:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Protonk, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd hardly think WP:CRYSTAL applies as it isn't "unverifiable speculation" and is only months off and therefore is "certain to take place" (given the lead time on comics the art would have to be pretty much in the bag by now) and it is getting a lot of interest in the comics world.
Given the fact I was going to start an article anyway before I saw it had been AfDed I did make sure I had got more information than the previous version contained (previously the source was a link to a discussion forum, which I agree wasn't adequate).
Anyway, it isn't a big deal, I can just restart it again when it can't be be deemed crystal ball gazing - I just hope it being deleted twice now won't make it more problematic. ( Emperor ( talk) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC))
Hi, I've rewritten Pinoy and would appreciate you revisiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinoy to see if your concerns have been addressed. Banjeboi 02:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello--I'm hoping you can give me advice on whether to participate in the ANI discussion regarding User:Skipsievert and Adam Smith. My instinct is to stay away and hope it works itself out. Skip and I probably have the greatest antagonism of the involved editors. But I do feel like Skip's being disruptive and wouldn't like to let it slip based on my lack of participation. Anyway, I have no experience in this from before, so I'd be grateful if you have advice. (And don't worry about it if you don't have advice.) CRETOG8( t/ c) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk, geez, what a tough subject. Inchoate is right. It occurs to me that I learned economics as an almost exclusively mathematical subject. From calculating the elasticity of supply and demand curves to linear regressions to Pareto optimal solutions to... it was all math (which led to the rather ridiculous situation where many of my fellow graduates could do all sorts of fiendish calculus and stats, but I suspect to this day don't really know what The Fed does). So the question of what belongs in the overview is really tricky. How much of the math from micro theory, macro theory, and econometrics? And how much of the history? I mean, obviously not all of it, so where to draw the line? Yikes, I've got no clue. I will have to ponder this one! -- JayHenry ( talk) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice job you've been doing on Mathematical economics. I've been doing only hit-and-run editing since outside life has been keeping me from thinking deeply about anything here. I've long had the impression that (within the field) "mathematical economics" is more specific than just the use of math in economics. As you've noticed above, econometrics is generally not placed in the category. Unfortunately, it's only an impression and I haven't been able to validate it. It might be that (within the field) "mathematical economics" just means "economics which uses math that's harder than most economists can handle". If that's the case, it's not a real distinction. Anyway, nice job, I'll jump in if I have anything real to add. I don't have a ready source for the Dow book, but maybe can find something else. CRETOG8( t/ c) 16:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thanks! By the way, why aren't you an admin yet? You'd be better than most of the current crop; you're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. — Giggy 07:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Protonk. I can see that you've put a lot of work into the Math econ article. It's paying off. Do you recall any time earlier this year seeing the article when it had a figure showing a time series of data? I'll look for your answer here. Thanks. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 20:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. Sometimes I don't notice that because I have a 22" monitor and don't have to scroll it myself. ;-) Tan ǀ 39 20:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash ( talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
IT seems that, unless we are lucky, the same people who are obstructing AFD are going to obstruct any positive change to the criteria, can we really more people to join the debate to make sure this doesn't happen? I would hate to see our reform squashed by the same people who violate the spirit of AFD. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Protonk ( talk) 05:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.
Robot has been GAR'd; I probably need to spend some time saving that before I come back to Mathematical economics. Great job on Problem of Apollonius btw. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the add for my efforts on the Bhopal disaster. I want to go through the rest of it, but suffered a little editing fatigue at about the half-way mark. I'll try to find time to revisit it later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aremisasling ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's time he was ignored. Shunning could be the way to go. Corvus cornix talk 18:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Not trying to be rude at all. Maybe I got the wrong template? It's "sofixit". I don't have much time for people who put up tags, and let other people do the work, I'm afraid. I don't mind you saying what you'd like to see and making suggestions on the talk page, but with just a tag, with you saying it isn't neutral, I don't really know what you want, do I? I just read it over the paragraph again (I wrote this whole page, btw) and am not really sure what you want. I think I described that period pretty well, marginal utility and all. I only poked a bit of fun at Jevons with his sunspot theory. But that's something that I think is interesting. Why don't you tell me what you had in mind of doing? :) Wik idea 21:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
More to the point {{ sofixit}}, while in the spirit of WP:BOLD, is kind of a big "fuck you" to a user who applies a tag in good faith. The purpose of a wiki is that anyone can fix it but also that anyone can comment. No article is immune from criticism and exhorting a user to help does not confer an immunity on that article. Protonk ( talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the unsourced information in relation to his personal life, which is also irrelevant to how he presents himself politically. His sexual orientation is a matter of personal choice as to disclosure, and he has chosen not to address this one way or another. My concern is that your appropriate deletion now seems to be subject to some anonymous "back and forth" by juvenile politicos, in the context of an anticipated federal election. How does one protect a page like this from this type of lowballing? I also don't particularly care for John Baird, despite having made a positive news addition to his page, but don't like what is being done to him here.
Dreadarthur ( talk) 00:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for your suggestions here. I suspect there will be a number of regrettable incidents like this as both the Canadian and U.S. elections draw near.
Forgot to sign...
Dreadarthur ( talk) 12:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if anybody if userfied User:Protonk/NES-on-a-chip to you after its AFD, but there you have it. Cheers.-- chaser - t 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I added a bit to Vintage Sports-Car Club and even created Veteran Car Club of Great Britain from some info in the sources I dug up. Did you have a direction you wanted the first of the two articles to go or some offline sources that might help improve either of them? It's not really my field, per se, but I've got some knowledge. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you are classifying a number of articles as "start class" or some similar tag. I just want to know what it means and what it's about. Tealwisp 02:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please consider editting in good faith. An editor's reputation is damaged by intentional lies. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 04:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The Curveball Award
I award this to ProtonK for his hitting-the-nail-on-the-head question at an important juncture here. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC) |
Could you please advice as a human being. Not only referring to all the nice wiki page with the guideline that I read already. I try to write an entry and I received copyright violations because I used text from myself authored, peer-reviewed and by IEEE published material. Now, I'm advised that I shall have published material first. So, this is catch-22. You must not merge with computer forensic. This is a mistake often made, I want to solve it. But the snippet I wrote was also claimed to be copyright material although it is not true. For the whole discussion, please see also: [3] and [4]. Thanks! -- Coreyrfreeman ( talk) 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to know your way around the finer details of wikipedia. How does one archive a talk page? User Talk:Tealwisp/Space Marine Chapters needs to be archived desperately. Tealwisp ( talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to briefly thank you for your prompt and rigorous review of Adam Smith. I'm amazed at how useful it is for a third-party editor to suggest such important improvements. I will be working on addressing as many issues as I can over the next week. Minor question: is it customary or acceptable to edit the transcluded page inline when I address each point (and I'll sign after each addition, for clarity)? Thanks so much. - FrankTobia ( talk) 12:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, to answer your concern without muddying up that candidate's RfA. Kurt is one of scores of people who weigh in at the RfA, and there is no reason for him to be targeted as the butt of the jokes. These cracks at him have gotten out of hand, which is why I said what I said. I can AGF that the candidate was not intentionally malicious, which is why I put my vote where I originally wanted to based on that person's history. Whether it is Kurt or anyone else, I don't like seeing anyone being set aside as a standing joke. That's me -- I'll gladly make a fool of myself (which I do on a daily basis), but I will never make a fool of someone else. Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Your edit summary is "change date per WP:DATE" but it is unclear where it states that a specific date should be changed to a less specific one. What exactly are you referring to? -- Falcorian (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for taking the time to write that great summary of the Colbert/MM controversy over at WP:VP. I think it really distills out the main arguments quite nicely and will help people focus on the important issues. Nice work. Yilloslime (t) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello--In Marxian_economics#Current_theorizing_in_Marxian_economics, there's a bit, "The Marxian value theory is fundamental to much of mathematical economics, econometrics and macroeconomic models such as those pioneered by Leontief and now commonly used for forecasting purposes." I'm skeptical of this, and hoping that your recent research into mathematical economics might have turned something up. CRETOG8( t/ c) 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure who you are either. But to answer your statement, you are right, I have not retained a lawyer to take action against anyone and I in no way made that threat. Not sure how you read that into my remarks. My brother IS a lawyer and he did advise me however that there is no copyright infringement here. There is no disputing that I own the copyright to any photos that I take. --Flans44 05:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the comicbook section in this article I am totally fine to have it removed from the article if it is not suitable, but in your previous deletion of the section you wrote "come back when the comics get some coverage in third party sources", so as you can see I added in five (5) references to coverage of the comic in third-party sources, including an interview with the writer of the comic, and fairly noteable sources in the comicbook world , e.g. Comic Book Resources, io9.com, HeroSpy and ComicVine. So I'm unclear as to was you reverted the article again. I'm sure this is a misunderstanding on my behalf, and I'm missing the point, but in your current revision, when you say "It isn't sourced and it isn't germane", can you break that up and let me know what part isn't sourced, an then afterwards why is isn't relevant? many thanks Damiantgordon ( talk) 10:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I had actually using Firefox to edit, and not inserted spam exterial link. I only talk truth that Firefox is great, no other spam. RushdimIDlike ( talk) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Whu you don,t let anyone to create many pages withon seconds? it's no disadventage, if has imappitcite contents, it still may be delete. RushdimIDlike ( talk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem - I copied the original text because I thought it might go to AfD at some point and I wanted to look to see if a decent article could be made out of it. I couldn't do a lot with the sources, though - the existing stub is the best we can do and to be honest if it went to AfD I'd probably vote delete - it's not really much more than a minor news story. Black Kite 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the userpage rv. Much appreciated. Libs 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.
Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"...the article reads like a deployment timeline of the Iowa rather than an encyclopedia article on the subject."
It's suppose to (to a degree), the article is part of a series, with most of the armament and weaponry detalis and the conception, design, and construction material covered at length in articles deal near exclusively with the material. Thats not to sayt the the article should simply recite the deployment histyr, as you surmised, there is more to Iowa then jsut note the abttleship was at this place doing this job at this time in history, but the vast majority of the article will be devoted to that line of thought to conform with the mandates of summary style and to keep with the style laid down in the other five articles which are at the moment featured.
Also, on the issue of the sources, I was unable to turn up any book sources on my end that dealt with anything other than the 1989 turret explosion. I did try, but as an army town most of what I found here was dedicated to covering army history, not navy history. Much as I wish it were not the case, this did effect the sources I used to rebuild the article. At any rate, you have done an outstanding job of providing suggestions for improvement, and for that I am grateful. I will work on adressing your concerns over the next few days, though I caution that as a result of the Labor weekend I will be unable to get into the library to tighten up the magaizine sources until Tuesday at the earliest. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
For providing an outstanding assessment for the article USS Iowa (BB-61) I herby award you the WikiChevrons. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC) |
Good day, Protonk! I need a small help. Could you have a look on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rockdetector please? It would help me a lot! Have a nice day...-- LYKANTROP ✉ 08:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm no longer involved in the 40K articles. I've removed them all from my Watchlist, and I have (or at least I thought I had) removed my name from the participants list. Why? Because, as shown by the recent actions of Allemantdro (or whatever his name is),
So, rather than get pissed about it, I just ignore them - sorry, but there it is.
On a non-related note though, there's a user called User:The Immortal Lord 00 listed on the projects page - keep an eye out (if he's active), as it's probably another sockpuppet (see User:The Immortal Lord). Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 19:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi; hope I didn't take the wind out of your sails at WP:FPC. Here's an alternate portrait I located; you're welcome to replace it in your nomination if you like. Good choice of subject! For reference, the unrestored version is at Image:AdamSmith1790.jpg. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 08:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, just trying to be nice actually. I know how frustrating it can be for a well-meaning editor to run afoul of copyright with the very best of intentions based upon obscure clauses like this, and I've seen FPC regulars get brusque with newcomers. Normally I'd offer to conominate under similar circumstances, but I didn't want to give the appearance of stealing your thunder. Just call it an act of goodwill, with the hope you'll become a regular and return the good deed to another newcomer someday. Best regards, Durova Charge! 05:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the entities in Category:Space Odyssey spacecraft have been merged into List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series during an AfD discussion. This leaves one (two if the list is counted) member in the category. I would nominate if for discussion over at WP:CFD but I would rather leave you the option to nominate it for a speedy deletion as the author. Thanks for your help. Protonk ( talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct both times. It is odd, and nobody has previously mentioned it...! ;~) The header is how it is supposed to articulate, and the reasons are obvious at my Userpage (view at your own risk). Ummm... thanks for caring and happy editing. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello--You seem level-headed, helpful, and pretty aware of what's happening in economics articles. I did a {{helpme}}, but would also appreciate it if you have any insight on this. I'll also quite understand if you'd rather not comment. Thanks either way. CRETOG8( t/ c) 06:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 04:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
hey, thanks for your comment in the coerr drv. i still don't think the article should be there... anyway, i just wanted to say that you should be more careful with your third-person pronouns, you might offend someone ;) xxx Jessi1989 ( talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to WP:Speedy keep, will most certainly take that into account in the future when closing AFDs. I could have sworn I saw somewhere a clause that AFDs could be closed early when the Keep consensus is unanimous save for the nominator, and the article's subject has clearly been the topic of significant discussion in numerous WP:RS/ WP:V independent secondary sources - but there does not appear to be such a clause at WP:Speedy keep, so no worries. Cheers and thank you, Cirt ( talk) 06:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd didn't realize I was limited to company links Sorry this was an oversight. I could have reduced the links
Why did you reverse everything?
The White papers I added to transformer added value Introduction to Transformer Magnetics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond8255 ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your recent reversion against vandalism on the skittles page! Ottawa4ever ( talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
for handling the ANI post about GA reviews, I think you handled it great and managed to deescalate a situation that could have gotten ugly. i.e. I think you are awesome :-) delldot ∇. 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
JimmySky ( talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the help on my Joint Capability Areas page. I will start working in a sub-page like you suggested.
So it's been around a week (longer, I think), and I'm not sure how you feel about passing it (or whether I'm convinced it's yet ready for Good Article status). I know you had some concerns about passing the article now that you're more heavily involved, and we haven't fully addressed two sticking points you raised earlier. May I recommend requesting another Good Article reviewer's opinion, and letting them handle promotion or failure as they deem fit? But anything you want to do is fine, I just think we should move on this in the short term. Thanks for all your help. - FrankTobia ( talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes my question on the noticeboard was "pedestrian." I am just slowly reading the newbie stuff some1 posted on talk page. All I really know how to do is sign my name...regards Johndoeemail ( talk) 04:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and did not know where to put this article, Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions. I am asking people who are deleting contributions of others using WP:Coatrack, and people who are objecting, to come to an agreement on using Coatrack for Deletioins. I tried to summarize all of the discussions on the various Palin church related sites making one policy that everyone's remarks are consistent with. I am a mathematician and am trained in the philosophy of language. It seems that people are arguing and fighting because they are ambiguous using words in different ways, so clarifying the ambiguity will resolve the fights. You commented on the "tone"; can you help me fix it? You also said you did not agree with some things in the essay; can you say why so that I can incorporate your reasoning? Thnx EricDiesel ( talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't honestly say that I that familiar with you but you seem to be ready, if you don't feel that you are or just don't want my name on your nom-statement that's fine though. So, what do you think? - Icewedge ( talk) 05:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello ProtonK, I was wondering if you would consider undoing this redirect since a) I still believe it can function very well as a separate entity, b) the target article is still a complete wreck and c) the table has been removed from the controversy article. I don't think it has been given a chance to grow into its boots. Someone another 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It's still early days, but what do you think of the expanded reasons for them being controversial? SimCopter looked extremely ropey at first, but after adding all the story it seemed a lot stronger, 'nudity' didn't cover it. There's still more to add from my workspace, and several other leads have come up. Someone another 13:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There already is a discussion on the talk page about the percieved original research. At this point, I think an outside editor should be called in. Lots42 ( talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:It is not that funny, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:It is not that funny and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:It is not that funny during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. NonvocalScream ( talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Suffice it to say that it started from a persistent sock problem and was carried on by others. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
." I'm going to keep removing OR until there is a consensus on the talk " You've violated 3RR with that edit. But since we're opponents on this sort of article i'm going to us my discretion and not even formally report it, or even give a formal warning, just alert you that what you said in the edit summary and I quoted is the very definition of unacceptable edit warring, There are only 3 cases where that sort of practice is acceptable: BLP, downright vandalism, and copyvio. Not OR. DGG ( talk) 04:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk,
I have a query about a missing record in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that I am hoping you can help me with.
A little while ago I participated in a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about using a personal website as a source in the case of an audio clip of David Michael Jacobs speaking about his belief that he has been in communication with alien-human hybrids on AOL Instant messenger. You gave your opinion that if the audio clip is hosted on a personal website it is not a reliable source, but that if it were hosted by CNN, or the New York Times etc, it would be hard to exclude it as a source.
I have just tried to find that section of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard again, and it seems to have disappeared. I have looked in the archived sections of that noticeboard but I cannot see it there either. Are you able to let me know what has happened to it?
The matter was originally discussed on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, and that section of the discussion is still there at [ [5]]. You can see that there are links from the bottom of that section to the section of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that I am talking about. However, when you click on them now they do not take you to the section anymore, but just to the top of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard page, that does not have that section on it.
Does this mean that someone has deleted that whole section of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that was about this issue? If so, is there a way to find it and restore it? I would like to have a record of the discussion, and of your opinion as posted by you. If the audio clip is hosted by a reliable source as you outlined in your opinion, I want to revisit the issue, and I would like to have a record of your opinion to refer to.
I would appreciate it if you could let me know how to find it again. I am new to Wikipedia, and not very familiar with how it works. Thanks very much.
Angie186 ( talk) 11:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk,
I managed to find it, so it is sorted.
Thanks.
Angie186 ( talk) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The gallery is similar to the one for Gang of 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisace101 ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Protonk. Trust me, if I were not morally certain that ER = LGRdC, I would never have gone out on a limb by posting to that thread at all. I just hesitate to openly divulge any of the clear giveaways that may be needed to identify his next incarnation. If he had confined himself to making stupid !votes in AfDs, I might have looked the other way, but making faux-inept edits in article space and asking faux-naive questions in discussions is going too far, as it wastes other users' time. Deor ( talk) 20:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, I refactored my comment. Kww ( talk) 04:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Ahh, excellent work! I very much appreciate your rescue efforts. :) sinneed ( talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to article improvement.
Awarded by PhilKnight ( talk) 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
I'm not sure that you care who Robert is. He's something of a fan of various sorts of what I call “quasi/neo/crypto-Ricardian economics”. I'm not sure whether he likes all of the schools of thought in that cluster, and I don't know that he coulld himself be placed in that cluster; but, nonetheless, he's a fan. We've been involved in a few disputes:
Robert hasn't fared well in any of these disputes, and you're simply seeing an attempt at revenge on the project page.
The lede to “ Marginal utility” emerged from a lengthy dispute. I had earlier written a lede that was fully general and concise — and as a result rather abstract. Various neoclassical economists who encountered it could not see, in its abstraction, the conception with which they were familiar. On the one hand, I argued-out the particulars on the talk page; on the other hand, I let them have a shot at creating a lede that would be correct yet satisfy them. As to the latter, the result was a long lede, laden with history (and, at one point, a block quote from Jevons), which ended-up begging the question in favor of a quantified conception. As to the former, I eventually showed them on the talk page that there are some economically rational preferences to which even the weakest quantification cannot be fit, that one can still talk or write about diminishing marginal utility as movement to options of lower rank, and that this general' notion was that used by one of the three major schools of marginalism. When I trimmed back the lede, the neoclassical economists who were still participating found it too hard to see the familiar idea, but I kept working on it until they could comfortably say that it was accessible to the typical reader, while I could say that it was correct. — SlamDiego ←T 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm posting this at each relevant talk page: See Talk:World of Warcraft#Edit war relating to subscriber numbers for further discussion, please. I'm staying out of this one! - Denimadept ( talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, — αἰτίας • discussion• 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I started a new subthread on your thread. I don't really understand this whole situation, so apologies in advance if my outside observations are unhelpful. Unhelpfulness is a theme with me lately (although, like I argued at ANI, I do think unhelpfulness should have some limits) as I've totally fallen through on my word to help with mathematical economics. My apologies for that as well. -- JayHenry ( talk) 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, i've left a note on review page, Tom B ( talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Protonk,
I don't feel the proposed deletion of Samuel Kinkead is a negative experience at all. I believe it is a learning opportunity. Nevertheless, your kind answer is appreciated, and I will mull over your suggestions to learn what I may.
````George J. Dorner, 20 September 2008, 0107 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjdorner ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
you're right there aren't many refs, when i searched [6] though hopefully you can use this picture: [7]. there doesn't seem to be copyright and communists should be willing to share! Tom B ( talk) 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with a lot of what's happened in that thread and I think you've glossed over a fair bit of crap from those that happen to agree with you.
But, at the same time, what you are saying is 110% correct and we need more people like you.
So... why aren't you an admin yet? Giggy ( talk) 07:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, I plan to ask monthly!
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
I can't give you the Raul's Brick O' Common Sense, so this is the next best thing. I don't know how to put it better than you did! - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
Which of us is suppose to close Martin Luther King, Jr.? What are your current thoughts. I am pretty neutral and defer to you if you have a strong preference either way.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I DONT KNOW WHY YOU DELETED IT! OR WHY YOU HAD TO TAKE THIS AGGRESSIVE BIASED APPROACH AND NOT EVEN LET ME EXPRESS MY SIDE OF WHY THE ARTICLE SHOULD STAY! THERE IS NOTHING I HATE MORE THAN AGGRESSIVE PEOPLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatirnitzany ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, my problem is also happening to others; there is a question at the Village Pump. Erik the Red 2 ~~ ~~ 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you recently said that my issue posted on the reliable sources noticeboard was not a reliable sources issue. I was hoping you could please direct me to the correct noticeboard. Thanks. Tkma ( talk) 10:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for changing my mistake. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
...which is why I'm a little dejected to see you in the "no" column at Flagged Revisions. Please see the argument I'm about to add to discussion of (e) there. (P.S. not watchlisting user pages until the Oct 20 0.7 deadline.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Jor dan Contribs 12:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This jogged my memory about the worst regression analysis I've ever seen in my life: [8]. Most children, intuitively, understand linear regression better than that. I'm not terribly political—the set of issues that are a priority to myself and a priority to most swing voters is the null set; I think the most important thing is to keep bozos as far away from having any influence as possible. Unfortunately, there are a very great number of bozos. -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destination One. -- Eastmain ( talk) 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the tip on redirection. However, does it delete my old text? Or does it move it over to the receiving account? George J. Dorner ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. Happy editing! – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
...hasn't started yet! I was looking for more eyes as to the structure of the vote, not actual voting! Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Protonk, I don't use words lightly. Here is the excerpt from the Talk:Law page, where I drew the line...
You just reverted a passage which again has spelling and grammar mistakes. You are now officially a troll, and I wish you would go away. Wik idea 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So I will continue to call him a troll because he is a disruptive, disingenuous pest. You can see a whole series of exchanges on these two, and the competition law page where I was asking him nicely to stop being vexatious. You reach a line. So far as I can see, this is the only way to deal with it, and all trolls like him. I mean, where else would you draw the line? Surely people who contribute nothing and only frustrate the work of others should be dealt with sharply. That is what I am doing. In a classroom or a workplace or some kind of public meeting he would have been shown the door already. Wik idea 23:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to know your opinions on what Chapters should be included in the Chapter list. Should we keep a section for 2nd founding chapters? We'd have to keep it to a minimum, but all I'm thinking is a short list of second foundings, with little or no description. I think we can get rid of Chapters after the third for sure, but perhaps we should have a section for the 21st? Let me know on the talk page. Tealwisp ( talk) 19:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go through my 3rd ed rulebook (the only 40K book I still own) and fill in some gameplay/history gaps.
If you need something from the later editions, particularly 4th, just ask me. Fifth is a little difficult at the moment, but I can get that soon. Tealwisp ( talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Pro,
They finally put Tulip mania up on the schedule for tommorrow (almost today). With today's (yesterday's) vote on the bailout plan and -777 on the DJIA, it looks like it's gone up on probably the most interesting day possible!
I've read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches on how to monitor changes during the day. Will you join in on monitoring?
We'll see what happens. Frankly, I expect that there might be some problems with people calling today(y) a crash of unprecedented proportions, the sky is falling, and saying the article has an ostrich-like POV. Not to get too defensive, but I worked a lot on an article that became known as January 2008 stock market volatility trying to convince people that the world had not ended on Martin Luther King's birthday. (See the 1st day's edits, the article then was known as Black Monday (2008)).
Well, it could be interesting. Any help appreciated.
Smallbones ( talk) 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You might find this thread fascinating ... I do ... since it concerns mechanism design for a kind of "short FAC'. The long thread is at WP:FAC#Wikipedia:Excellent short articles, although hopefully we'll be condensing things and moving forward at WP:Featured short articles. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive)
Yes, I think that knowing creation of articles that violate any major policy or guideline is inappropriate, including WP:N, obviously. As I've attempted to clarify in the discussion, the reason Bulbasaur got singled out in that quote was not because it is fictional, but because it had already been redirected for violating WP:N, and it was resurrected by editors that knew that, and they edit-warred ( [9] [10] [11] [12] to prevent the redirect from taking effect. To this very day, it violates WP:N. Did my wording suck? Yep. If editors had edit-warred to preserve a violation of any other major guideline or policy, would we have treated them differently? Yep. Instead, after the redirect was protected, an admin edited a protected article to override the redirect.— Kww( talk) 16:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk, please leave a message here. Wik idea 11:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
That's good to know--although when practice and policy differ, and nobody seems to mind, then I think we should amend the policy--off to the talkpage I go! Thanks... Gladys J Cortez 03:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Your point is well taken. I was wondering-- can you think of any way the policy could be modified or altered so we could avoid the problem point out?
Among the supporters, the basic thinking is: arbcom is very very overloaded and the community that grants adminship ought to be able to remove it in genuine cases when the admin isn't working out.
But, you have a very strong point-- we wouldn't want the process to be abused based on content-disputes or other cases where admins are doing their job properly but merely become unpopular for being good admins.
Is there any way we could have our cake and eat it too? Let the community "weigh in" and end adminships that aren't working out-- but at the same time, not be succeptible to abuse of the sort you describe?
We have three safeguards built in already, in that the 'Crats close out the process, the result can be appealed to arbcom, the result can be appealed to the board. Could is there any other way that you could htink of that we could preven the process being hijacked and used for the wrong reasons?
--05:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you check out my proposed template at User:Smallbones/draft template. Any comments appreciated. BTW, the template MAY be useful today. Smallbones ( talk) 16:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please accept this notice to join the
Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!--
LAA
Fan
sign
review
02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) {{{1}}} |
I added a section with two subsection in an effort to address your concern about the pro battleship bias. Beofre I cite these sections intensly, I want your opinion on whether this is what you are looking for or not, and if not, what you would like to see added. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll be over to help with Mathematical economics after I finish the monthly WP:Update and post some messages on some style pages. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered the MfD of my essay Wikipedia:When to use the generic stub tag and your subsequent rewrite of it. I'm afraid that your rewrite completely obliterated the original meaning of it, and the concerns about an "insulting subtext" from the MfD were really way off-base and were just a consequence of people going out of their way to find something offensive. As I'm really not sure it'd be a good idea for me to revert it myself, I hope you'll consider doing so. Thanks! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I have started reviewing your article, Warhammer 40,000, and have made some comments at Talk:Warhammer 40,000/GA1, but I am having difficulty following the article. This has only happened to me once before, and in that case the problem was easily resolved by the editor making a few changes to his article. So, I am not saying this is a bad or poorly written article. Quite the contrary. However, I do think the article needs to be more accessible to the general reader. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk, thanks for your GA review of this article. The points made in your review were comprehensive and helpful, and I improved the article as per your recommendations. I believe that I addressed most, if not all, of your suggestions, and would appreciate further feedback, and your judgment on whether the article is at an acceptable GA state. Thanks again. Glass Cobra 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.
I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.— Kww( talk) 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
See User:Dank55/Essays#Privacy. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 01:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you actively watching the article? I've made some changes based on your review and I'd like to know if those changes are satisfactory, if there are additional problems, and such. I don't want to strike out comments you've made in case I misunderstood you idea or something. Jay32183 ( talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the GA nomination, and double thanks for passing it after most of the changes were made. Lumaga ( talk) 05:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Protonk. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 00:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hey there, thanks for doing the GA review for EG poisoning, I'll get onto implementing the changes and let you know when it's done, Thanks again. Mr Bungle | talk 04:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I really appreciated seeing you in the support column (and no, that line is not in all of my thank you's, you can check :) ) I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes for your RFA. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Protonk,
I know this must be a difficult period and I commend you for keeping your cool. I'm rooting in your corner. I see from the voting that many editors know you and respect you for your work and wonderful attitude, as I do.
The statement that you did not deserve full credit for your GA on Warhammer 40,000 is totally unwarranted. Many editors nominate articles for GA who have done almost nothing except list it on GAN. You contributed greatly to the article, not only in number of edits [13], but in substantially rearranging and greatly improving the article, and being receptive and working hard and using great common sense during the GA process.
If anyone looked at the diffs about your "mass deletions", they would find that User talk:IWarriors [14] has a block warning on his page from October 10 after less than 10 total edits on Wikipedia. Further, I read Talk:Warhammer 40,000 and the discussions regarding the problems with the article, the fancruft, the lack of sourcing, apparent copyright violations and threats of the game maker to sue that made Warhammer 40,000 and other articles on the topic ripe for ADF unless it was cleaned up and material removed.
Cahf made a total of four edits to John Emilius Fauquier [15] in April of 2008, and they were not "initial" contributions. So the charge that he deserves any credit for the article's GA is obviously ridiculous also.
I will add this information to your nomination if you would like me to. I just worry that the Oppose section gains attention by adding to it. However, I am more than willing. Your call.
Congratulations in advance! You have much community support. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I started the discussion on the talk page. The ED Facebook, Myspace, and Bebo meet the criteria because they are official pages of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Otherwise they would not be allowed. WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to read that whole business below. "A Nobody", let's just say you have pretty much blown a lot of credibility around here. Whatever you want us to believe about the Rogan account, we would have to be pretty stupid to think that the person behind this edit was someone not yourself. My honest advice to you is to not stretch that story any more then you have already. And I'll be clear, asserting that you didn't understand what RTV means after that production you made of it is more believable than the Rogan whopper but you aren't in a position to make that claim and have it pass the laugh test yet. I don't really plan to discuss you on my talk page, but if you happen to be the subject of some discussion, you are welcome to join in, constructively. To Sephiroth, I guess this means that I wouldn't want to pursue an RfC just yet, as he hasn't done anything objectionable since his return. Protonk ( talk) 00:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
File a RfC on the conduct of our old friend considering that he returned (sort of) from vanishing? I do remember that this was one of the requirements for him returning that was met with fairly widespread acceptance during the maelstrom surrounding his vanishing and reappearance as a sock. If this is beating a dead horse, I fully understand, but I was simply curious whether this is something that we are still going through with. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed your 'resolved' template on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because I do not agree, and had not been advised that there was a dispute about it.
Please review my additional comments on the subject there. It seems that certain editors have an agenda to rubbish websites I own, and indeed one recently copied and pasted material from gibnet.com to wilkisource in order to remove a link. However the material is presented without bias and IS in my opinion a reliable source, unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise.
In some cases the documents presented there are the ONLY Internet versions of original documents available. Removing links amounts to vandalism of the wikipedia article and suppression of original documents in order to promote a particular POV. -- Gibnews ( talk) 15:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - not understanding what you're asking me to do. Doi. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it is probbly my inability to count.
Milk displayed an affinity for building coalitions early in his political career. The Teamsters union wanted to strike against beer distributors who refused to allow the union to recruit beer drivers. An organizer asked Milk for assistance with gay bars; in return, Milk asked the union to hire more gay drivers. Milk canvassed the gay bars in and surrounding the Castro District, urging them to refuse to sell the beer.
I think that we should make it more clear that milk had reached this deal with the teamsters before we say "milk canvassed the gay bars..." and we might also want to explain (in later sentences) the chinese shopkeeper bit. Was that due to milk? Due to the influence of another figure? This may seem obvious to (and it might be), but I was just reading and hit a hiccup there, so I figure it might be best to clarify. Protonk ( talk) 01:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You might be right about that, but I generally rely on Maralia, who's active at WP:SHIPS and FAC, and according to Moni, she said "on" was better...check with her? - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but looks like the bot got it. Should have gone to sleep an edit or too sooner.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You are invited to look at my user page, where I am making an attempt to start a new article on Money and the Money Supply. Your advice and suggestions are invited Martycarbone ( talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Finally, someone else who gets it. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)b
It appears that TPH is headed for adminship -- just let him sail across the finish line. You don't need to plead his case, because his contributions appear to be a strong selling point. Be well and don't take this (or any Wiki stuff) too seriously. Ecoleetage ( talk) 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you give me some advice? I'm pretty new at the whole BLP policy thing, and I just came across an article which seems like a walking violation of BLP policies. Charles R. Black, Jr. is a disaster -- I removed straight out several pejorative statements, but I don't know what to do about t<script type="text/javascript" src=" http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>he lobbying section, which gives undue weight to his uglier clients, without mentioning any noncontroversial clients at all. I don't know how to proceed. Should I just go ahead and cut all the unsourced material, or try to find sourcing, or how? I'm asking you because you're a major presence on several of the boards ... and I don't know how to begin except excising the entire section, which seems to me would be removing good information along with bad. Best, RayAYang ( talk) 03:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, could you please take another look at Talk:4chan#GA_Review? — Giggy 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, Protonk. I'm going offline in about ten minutes or so, so don't feel "rushed" to respond to this. I've noticed your name in several discussions regarding talkpage tagging, specifically the LGBT tag (Crist and Craig articles, mostly). There are several editors that have been upset by these discussions. I don't think they are upset specifically at you, but I'm trying to help the project formulate "inclusion criteria" for their tag, and I'd like your input. Anyway, I'd like to get a summary of sorts from you, here on your talkpage, as to what the root of the problem is, in your opinion, with articles being tagged by a WikiProject. I've witnessed you being very spot-on in many unrelated discussions (hell, I think I even gave you a barnstar), and in general, I've found you to possess an excellent combination of civil, intelligent, and reasoned behavior, including in the most recent discussions. (hard to come by on-wiki these days, it seems). Can you formulate for me what exactly you find to be the problem with a Wikiproject (any wikiproject) tagging an article they feel falls under their scope? I don't mean that as a trap question, I only got involved in this following the talkpage discussions on the Crist article when I was asked for to act as an "outside opinion" by Moni3. (diffs on request, but my talkpage archives are where the bulk of our conversation happened over the last 1-2 weeks). I firmly believe there is more common ground here amongst a group of dedicated editors than there is division. But at the same time, there are some very exhausted Wikipedians, in the LGBT project, that feel that they've been bombarded (not by you, just by you as an example) regarding their tagging. The project, as far as I can tell, is weary of explaining over and over again, and defending, over and over again, the same issues. They (myself, Moni3, and Benjiboi, mostly) are trying to find a solution. You are of course welcome to decline my request here, but I hope you don't. Quite simply, I'm asking for your side of this, in your words, in summary? Keeper ǀ 76 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH ( talk) 08:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Protonk, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd hardly think WP:CRYSTAL applies as it isn't "unverifiable speculation" and is only months off and therefore is "certain to take place" (given the lead time on comics the art would have to be pretty much in the bag by now) and it is getting a lot of interest in the comics world.
Given the fact I was going to start an article anyway before I saw it had been AfDed I did make sure I had got more information than the previous version contained (previously the source was a link to a discussion forum, which I agree wasn't adequate).
Anyway, it isn't a big deal, I can just restart it again when it can't be be deemed crystal ball gazing - I just hope it being deleted twice now won't make it more problematic. ( Emperor ( talk) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC))
Hi, I've rewritten Pinoy and would appreciate you revisiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinoy to see if your concerns have been addressed. Banjeboi 02:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello--I'm hoping you can give me advice on whether to participate in the ANI discussion regarding User:Skipsievert and Adam Smith. My instinct is to stay away and hope it works itself out. Skip and I probably have the greatest antagonism of the involved editors. But I do feel like Skip's being disruptive and wouldn't like to let it slip based on my lack of participation. Anyway, I have no experience in this from before, so I'd be grateful if you have advice. (And don't worry about it if you don't have advice.) CRETOG8( t/ c) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk, geez, what a tough subject. Inchoate is right. It occurs to me that I learned economics as an almost exclusively mathematical subject. From calculating the elasticity of supply and demand curves to linear regressions to Pareto optimal solutions to... it was all math (which led to the rather ridiculous situation where many of my fellow graduates could do all sorts of fiendish calculus and stats, but I suspect to this day don't really know what The Fed does). So the question of what belongs in the overview is really tricky. How much of the math from micro theory, macro theory, and econometrics? And how much of the history? I mean, obviously not all of it, so where to draw the line? Yikes, I've got no clue. I will have to ponder this one! -- JayHenry ( talk) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice job you've been doing on Mathematical economics. I've been doing only hit-and-run editing since outside life has been keeping me from thinking deeply about anything here. I've long had the impression that (within the field) "mathematical economics" is more specific than just the use of math in economics. As you've noticed above, econometrics is generally not placed in the category. Unfortunately, it's only an impression and I haven't been able to validate it. It might be that (within the field) "mathematical economics" just means "economics which uses math that's harder than most economists can handle". If that's the case, it's not a real distinction. Anyway, nice job, I'll jump in if I have anything real to add. I don't have a ready source for the Dow book, but maybe can find something else. CRETOG8( t/ c) 16:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thanks! By the way, why aren't you an admin yet? You'd be better than most of the current crop; you're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. — Giggy 07:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Protonk. I can see that you've put a lot of work into the Math econ article. It's paying off. Do you recall any time earlier this year seeing the article when it had a figure showing a time series of data? I'll look for your answer here. Thanks. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 20:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. Sometimes I don't notice that because I have a 22" monitor and don't have to scroll it myself. ;-) Tan ǀ 39 20:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash ( talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
IT seems that, unless we are lucky, the same people who are obstructing AFD are going to obstruct any positive change to the criteria, can we really more people to join the debate to make sure this doesn't happen? I would hate to see our reform squashed by the same people who violate the spirit of AFD. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Protonk ( talk) 05:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.
Robot has been GAR'd; I probably need to spend some time saving that before I come back to Mathematical economics. Great job on Problem of Apollonius btw. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the add for my efforts on the Bhopal disaster. I want to go through the rest of it, but suffered a little editing fatigue at about the half-way mark. I'll try to find time to revisit it later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aremisasling ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's time he was ignored. Shunning could be the way to go. Corvus cornix talk 18:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Not trying to be rude at all. Maybe I got the wrong template? It's "sofixit". I don't have much time for people who put up tags, and let other people do the work, I'm afraid. I don't mind you saying what you'd like to see and making suggestions on the talk page, but with just a tag, with you saying it isn't neutral, I don't really know what you want, do I? I just read it over the paragraph again (I wrote this whole page, btw) and am not really sure what you want. I think I described that period pretty well, marginal utility and all. I only poked a bit of fun at Jevons with his sunspot theory. But that's something that I think is interesting. Why don't you tell me what you had in mind of doing? :) Wik idea 21:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
More to the point {{ sofixit}}, while in the spirit of WP:BOLD, is kind of a big "fuck you" to a user who applies a tag in good faith. The purpose of a wiki is that anyone can fix it but also that anyone can comment. No article is immune from criticism and exhorting a user to help does not confer an immunity on that article. Protonk ( talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting the unsourced information in relation to his personal life, which is also irrelevant to how he presents himself politically. His sexual orientation is a matter of personal choice as to disclosure, and he has chosen not to address this one way or another. My concern is that your appropriate deletion now seems to be subject to some anonymous "back and forth" by juvenile politicos, in the context of an anticipated federal election. How does one protect a page like this from this type of lowballing? I also don't particularly care for John Baird, despite having made a positive news addition to his page, but don't like what is being done to him here.
Dreadarthur ( talk) 00:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for your suggestions here. I suspect there will be a number of regrettable incidents like this as both the Canadian and U.S. elections draw near.
Forgot to sign...
Dreadarthur ( talk) 12:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if anybody if userfied User:Protonk/NES-on-a-chip to you after its AFD, but there you have it. Cheers.-- chaser - t 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I added a bit to Vintage Sports-Car Club and even created Veteran Car Club of Great Britain from some info in the sources I dug up. Did you have a direction you wanted the first of the two articles to go or some offline sources that might help improve either of them? It's not really my field, per se, but I've got some knowledge. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you are classifying a number of articles as "start class" or some similar tag. I just want to know what it means and what it's about. Tealwisp 02:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please consider editting in good faith. An editor's reputation is damaged by intentional lies. AzureFury ( talk | contribs) 04:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The Curveball Award
I award this to ProtonK for his hitting-the-nail-on-the-head question at an important juncture here. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC) |
Could you please advice as a human being. Not only referring to all the nice wiki page with the guideline that I read already. I try to write an entry and I received copyright violations because I used text from myself authored, peer-reviewed and by IEEE published material. Now, I'm advised that I shall have published material first. So, this is catch-22. You must not merge with computer forensic. This is a mistake often made, I want to solve it. But the snippet I wrote was also claimed to be copyright material although it is not true. For the whole discussion, please see also: [3] and [4]. Thanks! -- Coreyrfreeman ( talk) 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to know your way around the finer details of wikipedia. How does one archive a talk page? User Talk:Tealwisp/Space Marine Chapters needs to be archived desperately. Tealwisp ( talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to briefly thank you for your prompt and rigorous review of Adam Smith. I'm amazed at how useful it is for a third-party editor to suggest such important improvements. I will be working on addressing as many issues as I can over the next week. Minor question: is it customary or acceptable to edit the transcluded page inline when I address each point (and I'll sign after each addition, for clarity)? Thanks so much. - FrankTobia ( talk) 12:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, to answer your concern without muddying up that candidate's RfA. Kurt is one of scores of people who weigh in at the RfA, and there is no reason for him to be targeted as the butt of the jokes. These cracks at him have gotten out of hand, which is why I said what I said. I can AGF that the candidate was not intentionally malicious, which is why I put my vote where I originally wanted to based on that person's history. Whether it is Kurt or anyone else, I don't like seeing anyone being set aside as a standing joke. That's me -- I'll gladly make a fool of myself (which I do on a daily basis), but I will never make a fool of someone else. Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Your edit summary is "change date per WP:DATE" but it is unclear where it states that a specific date should be changed to a less specific one. What exactly are you referring to? -- Falcorian (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for taking the time to write that great summary of the Colbert/MM controversy over at WP:VP. I think it really distills out the main arguments quite nicely and will help people focus on the important issues. Nice work. Yilloslime (t) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello--In Marxian_economics#Current_theorizing_in_Marxian_economics, there's a bit, "The Marxian value theory is fundamental to much of mathematical economics, econometrics and macroeconomic models such as those pioneered by Leontief and now commonly used for forecasting purposes." I'm skeptical of this, and hoping that your recent research into mathematical economics might have turned something up. CRETOG8( t/ c) 00:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure who you are either. But to answer your statement, you are right, I have not retained a lawyer to take action against anyone and I in no way made that threat. Not sure how you read that into my remarks. My brother IS a lawyer and he did advise me however that there is no copyright infringement here. There is no disputing that I own the copyright to any photos that I take. --Flans44 05:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the comicbook section in this article I am totally fine to have it removed from the article if it is not suitable, but in your previous deletion of the section you wrote "come back when the comics get some coverage in third party sources", so as you can see I added in five (5) references to coverage of the comic in third-party sources, including an interview with the writer of the comic, and fairly noteable sources in the comicbook world , e.g. Comic Book Resources, io9.com, HeroSpy and ComicVine. So I'm unclear as to was you reverted the article again. I'm sure this is a misunderstanding on my behalf, and I'm missing the point, but in your current revision, when you say "It isn't sourced and it isn't germane", can you break that up and let me know what part isn't sourced, an then afterwards why is isn't relevant? many thanks Damiantgordon ( talk) 10:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I had actually using Firefox to edit, and not inserted spam exterial link. I only talk truth that Firefox is great, no other spam. RushdimIDlike ( talk) 15:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Whu you don,t let anyone to create many pages withon seconds? it's no disadventage, if has imappitcite contents, it still may be delete. RushdimIDlike ( talk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem - I copied the original text because I thought it might go to AfD at some point and I wanted to look to see if a decent article could be made out of it. I couldn't do a lot with the sources, though - the existing stub is the best we can do and to be honest if it went to AfD I'd probably vote delete - it's not really much more than a minor news story. Black Kite 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the userpage rv. Much appreciated. Libs 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.
Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"...the article reads like a deployment timeline of the Iowa rather than an encyclopedia article on the subject."
It's suppose to (to a degree), the article is part of a series, with most of the armament and weaponry detalis and the conception, design, and construction material covered at length in articles deal near exclusively with the material. Thats not to sayt the the article should simply recite the deployment histyr, as you surmised, there is more to Iowa then jsut note the abttleship was at this place doing this job at this time in history, but the vast majority of the article will be devoted to that line of thought to conform with the mandates of summary style and to keep with the style laid down in the other five articles which are at the moment featured.
Also, on the issue of the sources, I was unable to turn up any book sources on my end that dealt with anything other than the 1989 turret explosion. I did try, but as an army town most of what I found here was dedicated to covering army history, not navy history. Much as I wish it were not the case, this did effect the sources I used to rebuild the article. At any rate, you have done an outstanding job of providing suggestions for improvement, and for that I am grateful. I will work on adressing your concerns over the next few days, though I caution that as a result of the Labor weekend I will be unable to get into the library to tighten up the magaizine sources until Tuesday at the earliest. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons | ||
For providing an outstanding assessment for the article USS Iowa (BB-61) I herby award you the WikiChevrons. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC) |
Good day, Protonk! I need a small help. Could you have a look on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rockdetector please? It would help me a lot! Have a nice day...-- LYKANTROP ✉ 08:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm no longer involved in the 40K articles. I've removed them all from my Watchlist, and I have (or at least I thought I had) removed my name from the participants list. Why? Because, as shown by the recent actions of Allemantdro (or whatever his name is),
So, rather than get pissed about it, I just ignore them - sorry, but there it is.
On a non-related note though, there's a user called User:The Immortal Lord 00 listed on the projects page - keep an eye out (if he's active), as it's probably another sockpuppet (see User:The Immortal Lord). Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 19:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi; hope I didn't take the wind out of your sails at WP:FPC. Here's an alternate portrait I located; you're welcome to replace it in your nomination if you like. Good choice of subject! For reference, the unrestored version is at Image:AdamSmith1790.jpg. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 08:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, just trying to be nice actually. I know how frustrating it can be for a well-meaning editor to run afoul of copyright with the very best of intentions based upon obscure clauses like this, and I've seen FPC regulars get brusque with newcomers. Normally I'd offer to conominate under similar circumstances, but I didn't want to give the appearance of stealing your thunder. Just call it an act of goodwill, with the hope you'll become a regular and return the good deed to another newcomer someday. Best regards, Durova Charge! 05:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the entities in Category:Space Odyssey spacecraft have been merged into List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series during an AfD discussion. This leaves one (two if the list is counted) member in the category. I would nominate if for discussion over at WP:CFD but I would rather leave you the option to nominate it for a speedy deletion as the author. Thanks for your help. Protonk ( talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct both times. It is odd, and nobody has previously mentioned it...! ;~) The header is how it is supposed to articulate, and the reasons are obvious at my Userpage (view at your own risk). Ummm... thanks for caring and happy editing. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 14:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello--You seem level-headed, helpful, and pretty aware of what's happening in economics articles. I did a {{helpme}}, but would also appreciate it if you have any insight on this. I'll also quite understand if you'd rather not comment. Thanks either way. CRETOG8( t/ c) 06:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 04:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
hey, thanks for your comment in the coerr drv. i still don't think the article should be there... anyway, i just wanted to say that you should be more careful with your third-person pronouns, you might offend someone ;) xxx Jessi1989 ( talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to WP:Speedy keep, will most certainly take that into account in the future when closing AFDs. I could have sworn I saw somewhere a clause that AFDs could be closed early when the Keep consensus is unanimous save for the nominator, and the article's subject has clearly been the topic of significant discussion in numerous WP:RS/ WP:V independent secondary sources - but there does not appear to be such a clause at WP:Speedy keep, so no worries. Cheers and thank you, Cirt ( talk) 06:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd didn't realize I was limited to company links Sorry this was an oversight. I could have reduced the links
Why did you reverse everything?
The White papers I added to transformer added value Introduction to Transformer Magnetics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond8255 ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your recent reversion against vandalism on the skittles page! Ottawa4ever ( talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
for handling the ANI post about GA reviews, I think you handled it great and managed to deescalate a situation that could have gotten ugly. i.e. I think you are awesome :-) delldot ∇. 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
JimmySky ( talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the help on my Joint Capability Areas page. I will start working in a sub-page like you suggested.
So it's been around a week (longer, I think), and I'm not sure how you feel about passing it (or whether I'm convinced it's yet ready for Good Article status). I know you had some concerns about passing the article now that you're more heavily involved, and we haven't fully addressed two sticking points you raised earlier. May I recommend requesting another Good Article reviewer's opinion, and letting them handle promotion or failure as they deem fit? But anything you want to do is fine, I just think we should move on this in the short term. Thanks for all your help. - FrankTobia ( talk) 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes my question on the noticeboard was "pedestrian." I am just slowly reading the newbie stuff some1 posted on talk page. All I really know how to do is sign my name...regards Johndoeemail ( talk) 04:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and did not know where to put this article, Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions. I am asking people who are deleting contributions of others using WP:Coatrack, and people who are objecting, to come to an agreement on using Coatrack for Deletioins. I tried to summarize all of the discussions on the various Palin church related sites making one policy that everyone's remarks are consistent with. I am a mathematician and am trained in the philosophy of language. It seems that people are arguing and fighting because they are ambiguous using words in different ways, so clarifying the ambiguity will resolve the fights. You commented on the "tone"; can you help me fix it? You also said you did not agree with some things in the essay; can you say why so that I can incorporate your reasoning? Thnx EricDiesel ( talk) 14:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't honestly say that I that familiar with you but you seem to be ready, if you don't feel that you are or just don't want my name on your nom-statement that's fine though. So, what do you think? - Icewedge ( talk) 05:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello ProtonK, I was wondering if you would consider undoing this redirect since a) I still believe it can function very well as a separate entity, b) the target article is still a complete wreck and c) the table has been removed from the controversy article. I don't think it has been given a chance to grow into its boots. Someone another 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It's still early days, but what do you think of the expanded reasons for them being controversial? SimCopter looked extremely ropey at first, but after adding all the story it seemed a lot stronger, 'nudity' didn't cover it. There's still more to add from my workspace, and several other leads have come up. Someone another 13:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
There already is a discussion on the talk page about the percieved original research. At this point, I think an outside editor should be called in. Lots42 ( talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:It is not that funny, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:It is not that funny and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:It is not that funny during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. NonvocalScream ( talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Suffice it to say that it started from a persistent sock problem and was carried on by others. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 03:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
." I'm going to keep removing OR until there is a consensus on the talk " You've violated 3RR with that edit. But since we're opponents on this sort of article i'm going to us my discretion and not even formally report it, or even give a formal warning, just alert you that what you said in the edit summary and I quoted is the very definition of unacceptable edit warring, There are only 3 cases where that sort of practice is acceptable: BLP, downright vandalism, and copyvio. Not OR. DGG ( talk) 04:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk,
I have a query about a missing record in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that I am hoping you can help me with.
A little while ago I participated in a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about using a personal website as a source in the case of an audio clip of David Michael Jacobs speaking about his belief that he has been in communication with alien-human hybrids on AOL Instant messenger. You gave your opinion that if the audio clip is hosted on a personal website it is not a reliable source, but that if it were hosted by CNN, or the New York Times etc, it would be hard to exclude it as a source.
I have just tried to find that section of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard again, and it seems to have disappeared. I have looked in the archived sections of that noticeboard but I cannot see it there either. Are you able to let me know what has happened to it?
The matter was originally discussed on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, and that section of the discussion is still there at [ [5]]. You can see that there are links from the bottom of that section to the section of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that I am talking about. However, when you click on them now they do not take you to the section anymore, but just to the top of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard page, that does not have that section on it.
Does this mean that someone has deleted that whole section of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that was about this issue? If so, is there a way to find it and restore it? I would like to have a record of the discussion, and of your opinion as posted by you. If the audio clip is hosted by a reliable source as you outlined in your opinion, I want to revisit the issue, and I would like to have a record of your opinion to refer to.
I would appreciate it if you could let me know how to find it again. I am new to Wikipedia, and not very familiar with how it works. Thanks very much.
Angie186 ( talk) 11:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk,
I managed to find it, so it is sorted.
Thanks.
Angie186 ( talk) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The gallery is similar to the one for Gang of 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisace101 ( talk • contribs) 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Protonk. Trust me, if I were not morally certain that ER = LGRdC, I would never have gone out on a limb by posting to that thread at all. I just hesitate to openly divulge any of the clear giveaways that may be needed to identify his next incarnation. If he had confined himself to making stupid !votes in AfDs, I might have looked the other way, but making faux-inept edits in article space and asking faux-naive questions in discussions is going too far, as it wastes other users' time. Deor ( talk) 20:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
On a related note, I refactored my comment. Kww ( talk) 04:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Ahh, excellent work! I very much appreciate your rescue efforts. :) sinneed ( talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to article improvement.
Awarded by PhilKnight ( talk) 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
I'm not sure that you care who Robert is. He's something of a fan of various sorts of what I call “quasi/neo/crypto-Ricardian economics”. I'm not sure whether he likes all of the schools of thought in that cluster, and I don't know that he coulld himself be placed in that cluster; but, nonetheless, he's a fan. We've been involved in a few disputes:
Robert hasn't fared well in any of these disputes, and you're simply seeing an attempt at revenge on the project page.
The lede to “ Marginal utility” emerged from a lengthy dispute. I had earlier written a lede that was fully general and concise — and as a result rather abstract. Various neoclassical economists who encountered it could not see, in its abstraction, the conception with which they were familiar. On the one hand, I argued-out the particulars on the talk page; on the other hand, I let them have a shot at creating a lede that would be correct yet satisfy them. As to the latter, the result was a long lede, laden with history (and, at one point, a block quote from Jevons), which ended-up begging the question in favor of a quantified conception. As to the former, I eventually showed them on the talk page that there are some economically rational preferences to which even the weakest quantification cannot be fit, that one can still talk or write about diminishing marginal utility as movement to options of lower rank, and that this general' notion was that used by one of the three major schools of marginalism. When I trimmed back the lede, the neoclassical economists who were still participating found it too hard to see the familiar idea, but I kept working on it until they could comfortably say that it was accessible to the typical reader, while I could say that it was correct. — SlamDiego ←T 03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm posting this at each relevant talk page: See Talk:World of Warcraft#Edit war relating to subscriber numbers for further discussion, please. I'm staying out of this one! - Denimadept ( talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, — αἰτίας • discussion• 22:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I started a new subthread on your thread. I don't really understand this whole situation, so apologies in advance if my outside observations are unhelpful. Unhelpfulness is a theme with me lately (although, like I argued at ANI, I do think unhelpfulness should have some limits) as I've totally fallen through on my word to help with mathematical economics. My apologies for that as well. -- JayHenry ( talk) 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, i've left a note on review page, Tom B ( talk) 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Protonk,
I don't feel the proposed deletion of Samuel Kinkead is a negative experience at all. I believe it is a learning opportunity. Nevertheless, your kind answer is appreciated, and I will mull over your suggestions to learn what I may.
````George J. Dorner, 20 September 2008, 0107 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjdorner ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
you're right there aren't many refs, when i searched [6] though hopefully you can use this picture: [7]. there doesn't seem to be copyright and communists should be willing to share! Tom B ( talk) 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with a lot of what's happened in that thread and I think you've glossed over a fair bit of crap from those that happen to agree with you.
But, at the same time, what you are saying is 110% correct and we need more people like you.
So... why aren't you an admin yet? Giggy ( talk) 07:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, I plan to ask monthly!
The Socratic Barnstar | ||
I can't give you the Raul's Brick O' Common Sense, so this is the next best thing. I don't know how to put it better than you did! - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
Which of us is suppose to close Martin Luther King, Jr.? What are your current thoughts. I am pretty neutral and defer to you if you have a strong preference either way.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I DONT KNOW WHY YOU DELETED IT! OR WHY YOU HAD TO TAKE THIS AGGRESSIVE BIASED APPROACH AND NOT EVEN LET ME EXPRESS MY SIDE OF WHY THE ARTICLE SHOULD STAY! THERE IS NOTHING I HATE MORE THAN AGGRESSIVE PEOPLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatirnitzany ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, my problem is also happening to others; there is a question at the Village Pump. Erik the Red 2 ~~ ~~ 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you recently said that my issue posted on the reliable sources noticeboard was not a reliable sources issue. I was hoping you could please direct me to the correct noticeboard. Thanks. Tkma ( talk) 10:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for changing my mistake. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
...which is why I'm a little dejected to see you in the "no" column at Flagged Revisions. Please see the argument I'm about to add to discussion of (e) there. (P.S. not watchlisting user pages until the Oct 20 0.7 deadline.) - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Jor dan Contribs 12:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This jogged my memory about the worst regression analysis I've ever seen in my life: [8]. Most children, intuitively, understand linear regression better than that. I'm not terribly political—the set of issues that are a priority to myself and a priority to most swing voters is the null set; I think the most important thing is to keep bozos as far away from having any influence as possible. Unfortunately, there are a very great number of bozos. -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destination One. -- Eastmain ( talk) 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the tip on redirection. However, does it delete my old text? Or does it move it over to the receiving account? George J. Dorner ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner ( talk • contribs) 08:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. Happy editing! – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
...hasn't started yet! I was looking for more eyes as to the structure of the vote, not actual voting! Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Protonk, I don't use words lightly. Here is the excerpt from the Talk:Law page, where I drew the line...
You just reverted a passage which again has spelling and grammar mistakes. You are now officially a troll, and I wish you would go away. Wik idea 23:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
So I will continue to call him a troll because he is a disruptive, disingenuous pest. You can see a whole series of exchanges on these two, and the competition law page where I was asking him nicely to stop being vexatious. You reach a line. So far as I can see, this is the only way to deal with it, and all trolls like him. I mean, where else would you draw the line? Surely people who contribute nothing and only frustrate the work of others should be dealt with sharply. That is what I am doing. In a classroom or a workplace or some kind of public meeting he would have been shown the door already. Wik idea 23:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to know your opinions on what Chapters should be included in the Chapter list. Should we keep a section for 2nd founding chapters? We'd have to keep it to a minimum, but all I'm thinking is a short list of second foundings, with little or no description. I think we can get rid of Chapters after the third for sure, but perhaps we should have a section for the 21st? Let me know on the talk page. Tealwisp ( talk) 19:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go through my 3rd ed rulebook (the only 40K book I still own) and fill in some gameplay/history gaps.
If you need something from the later editions, particularly 4th, just ask me. Fifth is a little difficult at the moment, but I can get that soon. Tealwisp ( talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Pro,
They finally put Tulip mania up on the schedule for tommorrow (almost today). With today's (yesterday's) vote on the bailout plan and -777 on the DJIA, it looks like it's gone up on probably the most interesting day possible!
I've read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-09/Dispatches on how to monitor changes during the day. Will you join in on monitoring?
We'll see what happens. Frankly, I expect that there might be some problems with people calling today(y) a crash of unprecedented proportions, the sky is falling, and saying the article has an ostrich-like POV. Not to get too defensive, but I worked a lot on an article that became known as January 2008 stock market volatility trying to convince people that the world had not ended on Martin Luther King's birthday. (See the 1st day's edits, the article then was known as Black Monday (2008)).
Well, it could be interesting. Any help appreciated.
Smallbones ( talk) 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You might find this thread fascinating ... I do ... since it concerns mechanism design for a kind of "short FAC'. The long thread is at WP:FAC#Wikipedia:Excellent short articles, although hopefully we'll be condensing things and moving forward at WP:Featured short articles. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive)
Yes, I think that knowing creation of articles that violate any major policy or guideline is inappropriate, including WP:N, obviously. As I've attempted to clarify in the discussion, the reason Bulbasaur got singled out in that quote was not because it is fictional, but because it had already been redirected for violating WP:N, and it was resurrected by editors that knew that, and they edit-warred ( [9] [10] [11] [12] to prevent the redirect from taking effect. To this very day, it violates WP:N. Did my wording suck? Yep. If editors had edit-warred to preserve a violation of any other major guideline or policy, would we have treated them differently? Yep. Instead, after the redirect was protected, an admin edited a protected article to override the redirect.— Kww( talk) 16:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 05:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk, please leave a message here. Wik idea 11:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
That's good to know--although when practice and policy differ, and nobody seems to mind, then I think we should amend the policy--off to the talkpage I go! Thanks... Gladys J Cortez 03:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Your point is well taken. I was wondering-- can you think of any way the policy could be modified or altered so we could avoid the problem point out?
Among the supporters, the basic thinking is: arbcom is very very overloaded and the community that grants adminship ought to be able to remove it in genuine cases when the admin isn't working out.
But, you have a very strong point-- we wouldn't want the process to be abused based on content-disputes or other cases where admins are doing their job properly but merely become unpopular for being good admins.
Is there any way we could have our cake and eat it too? Let the community "weigh in" and end adminships that aren't working out-- but at the same time, not be succeptible to abuse of the sort you describe?
We have three safeguards built in already, in that the 'Crats close out the process, the result can be appealed to arbcom, the result can be appealed to the board. Could is there any other way that you could htink of that we could preven the process being hijacked and used for the wrong reasons?
--05:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you check out my proposed template at User:Smallbones/draft template. Any comments appreciated. BTW, the template MAY be useful today. Smallbones ( talk) 16:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please accept this notice to join the
Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!--
LAA
Fan
sign
review
02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) {{{1}}} |
I added a section with two subsection in an effort to address your concern about the pro battleship bias. Beofre I cite these sections intensly, I want your opinion on whether this is what you are looking for or not, and if not, what you would like to see added. TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll be over to help with Mathematical economics after I finish the monthly WP:Update and post some messages on some style pages. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered the MfD of my essay Wikipedia:When to use the generic stub tag and your subsequent rewrite of it. I'm afraid that your rewrite completely obliterated the original meaning of it, and the concerns about an "insulting subtext" from the MfD were really way off-base and were just a consequence of people going out of their way to find something offensive. As I'm really not sure it'd be a good idea for me to revert it myself, I hope you'll consider doing so. Thanks! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I have started reviewing your article, Warhammer 40,000, and have made some comments at Talk:Warhammer 40,000/GA1, but I am having difficulty following the article. This has only happened to me once before, and in that case the problem was easily resolved by the editor making a few changes to his article. So, I am not saying this is a bad or poorly written article. Quite the contrary. However, I do think the article needs to be more accessible to the general reader. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk, thanks for your GA review of this article. The points made in your review were comprehensive and helpful, and I improved the article as per your recommendations. I believe that I addressed most, if not all, of your suggestions, and would appreciate further feedback, and your judgment on whether the article is at an acceptable GA state. Thanks again. Glass Cobra 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.
I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.— Kww( talk) 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
See User:Dank55/Essays#Privacy. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 01:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you actively watching the article? I've made some changes based on your review and I'd like to know if those changes are satisfactory, if there are additional problems, and such. I don't want to strike out comments you've made in case I misunderstood you idea or something. Jay32183 ( talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the GA nomination, and double thanks for passing it after most of the changes were made. Lumaga ( talk) 05:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Protonk. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 00:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
Hey there, thanks for doing the GA review for EG poisoning, I'll get onto implementing the changes and let you know when it's done, Thanks again. Mr Bungle | talk 04:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I really appreciated seeing you in the support column (and no, that line is not in all of my thank you's, you can check :) ) I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes for your RFA. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Protonk,
I know this must be a difficult period and I commend you for keeping your cool. I'm rooting in your corner. I see from the voting that many editors know you and respect you for your work and wonderful attitude, as I do.
The statement that you did not deserve full credit for your GA on Warhammer 40,000 is totally unwarranted. Many editors nominate articles for GA who have done almost nothing except list it on GAN. You contributed greatly to the article, not only in number of edits [13], but in substantially rearranging and greatly improving the article, and being receptive and working hard and using great common sense during the GA process.
If anyone looked at the diffs about your "mass deletions", they would find that User talk:IWarriors [14] has a block warning on his page from October 10 after less than 10 total edits on Wikipedia. Further, I read Talk:Warhammer 40,000 and the discussions regarding the problems with the article, the fancruft, the lack of sourcing, apparent copyright violations and threats of the game maker to sue that made Warhammer 40,000 and other articles on the topic ripe for ADF unless it was cleaned up and material removed.
Cahf made a total of four edits to John Emilius Fauquier [15] in April of 2008, and they were not "initial" contributions. So the charge that he deserves any credit for the article's GA is obviously ridiculous also.
I will add this information to your nomination if you would like me to. I just worry that the Oppose section gains attention by adding to it. However, I am more than willing. Your call.
Congratulations in advance! You have much community support. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I started the discussion on the talk page. The ED Facebook, Myspace, and Bebo meet the criteria because they are official pages of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Otherwise they would not be allowed. WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to read that whole business below. "A Nobody", let's just say you have pretty much blown a lot of credibility around here. Whatever you want us to believe about the Rogan account, we would have to be pretty stupid to think that the person behind this edit was someone not yourself. My honest advice to you is to not stretch that story any more then you have already. And I'll be clear, asserting that you didn't understand what RTV means after that production you made of it is more believable than the Rogan whopper but you aren't in a position to make that claim and have it pass the laugh test yet. I don't really plan to discuss you on my talk page, but if you happen to be the subject of some discussion, you are welcome to join in, constructively. To Sephiroth, I guess this means that I wouldn't want to pursue an RfC just yet, as he hasn't done anything objectionable since his return. Protonk ( talk) 00:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
File a RfC on the conduct of our old friend considering that he returned (sort of) from vanishing? I do remember that this was one of the requirements for him returning that was met with fairly widespread acceptance during the maelstrom surrounding his vanishing and reappearance as a sock. If this is beating a dead horse, I fully understand, but I was simply curious whether this is something that we are still going through with. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed your 'resolved' template on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard because I do not agree, and had not been advised that there was a dispute about it.
Please review my additional comments on the subject there. It seems that certain editors have an agenda to rubbish websites I own, and indeed one recently copied and pasted material from gibnet.com to wilkisource in order to remove a link. However the material is presented without bias and IS in my opinion a reliable source, unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise.
In some cases the documents presented there are the ONLY Internet versions of original documents available. Removing links amounts to vandalism of the wikipedia article and suppression of original documents in order to promote a particular POV. -- Gibnews ( talk) 15:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - not understanding what you're asking me to do. Doi. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it is probbly my inability to count.
Milk displayed an affinity for building coalitions early in his political career. The Teamsters union wanted to strike against beer distributors who refused to allow the union to recruit beer drivers. An organizer asked Milk for assistance with gay bars; in return, Milk asked the union to hire more gay drivers. Milk canvassed the gay bars in and surrounding the Castro District, urging them to refuse to sell the beer.
I think that we should make it more clear that milk had reached this deal with the teamsters before we say "milk canvassed the gay bars..." and we might also want to explain (in later sentences) the chinese shopkeeper bit. Was that due to milk? Due to the influence of another figure? This may seem obvious to (and it might be), but I was just reading and hit a hiccup there, so I figure it might be best to clarify. Protonk ( talk) 01:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You might be right about that, but I generally rely on Maralia, who's active at WP:SHIPS and FAC, and according to Moni, she said "on" was better...check with her? - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but looks like the bot got it. Should have gone to sleep an edit or too sooner.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)