User talk:Protonk/Archive 5

Email

Hello, I have sent you an email. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... wonder what the e-mail was about :) Decided to take the plunge, eh? --JayHenry (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky, sneaky, you. I don't know what you are talking about. Protonk (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed he has. Good luck! -- how do you turn this on 00:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(←) (I never know when to start new threads on a busy talk page.) Thanks for the help with Panic of 1907--now featured! Now back to the drawing board for the next project... Any suggestions? p.s. how's the RFA treating you? I've heard they're horrible--lose sleep at night in real life--stressful. True? --JayHenry (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to find out? ;) (That's a serious suggestion actually) -- How do you turn this on (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

They are, actually, strangely stressful. Even with a concerted attempt to let things slide and much, much more support than I thought I would get, it is stressful. It is fun to answer the questions and talk to people, though. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To HDYTTO: Yeah, but the only thing I want is +EditProtected. And I usually only edit for a few hours a day, and even that unreliably. So even finding a free week, where I could be attentive... eh.

To Protonk: As for LTCM, I've def thought about this. Very fascinating story, and good sources to work with. I worry about accessibility. If a paragraph explanation of short selling still comes across as an abstract area of finance I'm definitely worry about explaining fixed income arbitrage, Over-the-counter derivative/swap trading, etc. to the FAC crowd. Same reason I'm somewhat reluctant to attempt Bear Stearns (although it'd be cool to have that ready by March 16). I know you said it wasn't great, but do you have a copy of Inventing Money? I have When Genius Failed... --JayHenry (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I can get it again from the library. Most of that book is about Merton, Meriwether and Scholes as a long prelude to the rather short history of LTCM. I think, actually, that these articles can benefit from the financial crisis because people will understand "netting" a trade and explaining the old/new bond split will not be too hard, likewise making the basic argument about betting on convergence. I also own Age of Turbulence, FWIW, though I never opened it...good intentions to do so and all. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I might do this. In addition to When Genius..., Kindleberger talks about it a lot. Shiller talks about the "Greenspan Put". If I remember correctly one of Tom Friedman's books, probably Lexus and the Olive Tree, had a good chapter, not about the economics, but about what it means for the world. That's a pretty good start for sources. --JayHenry (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Just sent out for Inventing Money over ILL. Should get it in a week or so. Protonk (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Half-Life 2: Lost Coast/GA1

You've always got great, comprehensive good article reviews. (I worked on the Adam Smith GA review that you did, too.) I'll get working on this one right away, although it will probably take longer than a week. After reading what you've written, I'm thinking of completing rewriting the article, but we'll see how it goes. Feel free to make this a collaborative effort ;) Gary King (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the praise. I'm just glad I didn't get a "grumble grumble, it's GA not meeting the Queen of England" kind of message for my review. :) Protonk (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

I left a question for you at your RFA page[1] You answer would be appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Hey, that went pretty well, didn't it? Don't block me, okay! --JayHenry (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! My first successful RFA nomination. Do me proud Pro! Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. If only my AfD !voting record matched my 1-0 RFA !voting record ;-). --EEMIV (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. JHenry tells me that Long-Term Capital Management is next. I may join in. Smallbones (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have Rlevse has just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically Rlevse did it, but anyway... -- How do you turn this on (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. WJBscribe (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's the second time WJBscribe and I conflicted on a closing ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats... even if our crats tend to be at conflict with one another.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, just remember be bold and WP:DDTMP :D RockManQ ^(talk) 02:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

On passing your RfA! :). Ironholds (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on RFA and WP:100

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Congratulations. Read over your RfA. Nice. Now, remember to stay nice! --Abd (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done all the best!--intraining ^{Jack In} 02:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Even though the outcome has been clear for several days, it's still nice to get the bit isn't it? Hope you don't mind the liberties I've taken with your user/talk pages. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, thanks. Protonk (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Triple, quadruple, quintuple, congrats! You'll make a fine addition to the admin team. —Ceran^(Sing) 00:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on passing your RfA, and good luck with the tools! — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the RfA success! Keep up the hard work, and if you ever need some edit help/second opinion/etc in the econ area, please feel free to drop me a line, as I'm in the same field (so I'll probably be watching anyway, but a heads-up never hurts). Again, way to go! JasonDUIUC (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! COngrats! Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Now be careful with all those buttons you get to play with now, and don't accidentally block me. Wronkiew (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Response and thanks

I'll make a new section because the accolades and congratulations above will be hard to respond to properly and keep threading going. Thanks to everyone who participated (or otherwise cajoled me to take a crack at it earlier). I'm really actually pretty humbled by the support I got. I'll get around to offering some non-spam thanks to people who chimed in later but now I'm just trying to make sure I don't break anything. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? )  04:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, congrats! --Iamunknown 04:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

well done. Remember #wikipedia-en-admins and that its OK to ask questions and fix what you did if you screw up. I'm sure you won't however. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, indeed! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! Never had a doubt. ;). 75.161.233.85 (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats also. Well deserved. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Port Colborne High School

Sorry about the speedy delete nomination and thank you for the refusal. Sometimes I can just get carried away, specially when I look at the "history log" and notice that the article was deleted 3 times already (and I didn't want to add references!). But the way you worded your comment made me want to go out and find references. Good job. Also, judging the worthyness of an article on this criteria or via the competence (or lack perhaps thereof) of a creator is definitely a bad form of bias which everyone (I) should avoid. Thank you for the kick in the but by denying the speedy delete. I've now improved the article with better references. Best regards. --CyclePat (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• No worries. It can happen to all of us. Thanks for swinging back to help improve the article! Protonk (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

u r a facist

u have ruined my article - it is V important that the world knows about the band I formed this afternoon. _{psss just thought I'd give you a taste of the new style of messages you can expect now you are an admin - congratulations on passing your RFA.} --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Made my day. :) Thanks. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

New proposal on old sources

You recently participated in a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard concerning how to use the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia in an article. Similar issues have been raised on a number of occasions, so I've proposed an addition to Wikipedia:Verifiability that would address the problem of how and when to use old sources. Please see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Dealing with potentially outdated sources - your comments would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Aspidistra (transmitter)

The article has been updated, with enough information to establish notability. I wish we could use the pictures of the Art Deco installation, which was from the overdesigned Golden Age of Radio. But at least we can use the logo.--John Nagle (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adams 2October1906.pdf

What article was this file in? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• It wasn't, near as I can tell. You can check what links to it, but they are all outside of articlespace. Protonk (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Image:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Book

I have added 5 sources to the article. Schuym1 (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Half-Life 2: Lost Coast/GA1 (2)

[2] Gary King (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry. Meant to do that earlier and forgot. I'll check back later tonight to fail it and start helping to improve it! (what tangled webs we weave). Protonk (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Aoso0ck

Can you please help me complete this form and submit? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aoso0ck Thanks. Is there anything else I can do to help? Jwri7474 (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest not filing an RfC. Requests for comment are lengthy community procedures which are mainly used for cases where some dispute exists that can't be solved through more lightweight means. This appears to be a pretty open and shut case of edit warring. He violated 3RR on the residency article and was on his way to violating it on many others. Future blocks for edit warring will be longer and longer. My advice is to continue to work on those articles and if the actual dispute (naming conventions for residency/internships) becomes problematic, seek outside opinion from Third opinion or mediation. A user conduct RfC will be swiftly rejected at this point. I hope that helps you out, even if it isn't what you would like. Protonk (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:BWcover92198.jpg

Yeah, the image will probably have to go. It's a shame that our fair use policy (probably) doesn't allow this, but I thought I'd see. No reason to hold up the article for a "I hope it works." I will get to work on LTCM, I promise. Sorry I missed Panic of 1907 and I really just noticed the FA and TFA. Congrats. Will LTCM make a complete trilogy, or are you guys going to make a career of panics, crashes, etc? I just found my "Genius" and will be reviewing it - my previous ideas on it look false. Hope to join in tomorrow! Smallbones (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored Image:BPickett.png

The article is about the character, not the actor so the image of the character in context is not replaceable by an image of the actor. Generally images of characters are considered significant in articles about the character. See discussion at WP:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_October_19#Image:Zack_Martin.PNG for a bit more on the reasoning. --NrDg 15:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine. It's a matter of opinion, I guess. Most of those Suite Life articles had way too many non-free images, but the process to delete some of them should have been IfD. Protonk (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree it is a matter of opinion about WP:FUC significance for each image used so should use IfD instead of speedy to get other editors input on this. So far general default consensus is to allow one low resolution screenshot character picture in the infobox of character articles. More than one fair-use image in any one article is extremely hard to justify. --NrDg 16:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with Images needed

Hello, I was guided to you by User:Intothewoods29 for assistance on an article with two images with inappropriate tags. Right now, Akshardham (Delhi) is being reviewed for GA. The two images with lisensing problems are Image:New Delhi Temple.jpg and Image:Akshardham Delhi .jpg. Can you help me add appropriate tags on them?    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. I have some questions first.

• Who owns the copyright on those images?
• Did they release the copyright under a creative commons license?
• If not, what permission did they grant for their use?

• I know some of those answers are on the image description page, but I want both of us to spell it out here so we don't assume that we know something that ends up not being true. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

request

Please take a look at the latest developments in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reply. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 23:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My subpage

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

Here's a proposition for you. I'll copy and paste the code into Template:Expandstub, and you remove the links to the stubpage. Sound a deal?--O'delanca (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Protonk, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Septimus Pretorius (2nd nomination)

If possible, could you expand on your comment to state why the article needs to exist when the real world content already exists in greater detail in the main article (Bride of Frankenstein#Homosexual interpretations)? TTN (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 21:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Zeituni Onyango re-written

This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for David W. Mullins Jr.

On 6 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David W. Mullins Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions. – RyanCross (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krysten moore

Beat you to it :). Noticed you went for no consensus rather than my keep, mind if I ask for your reasoning behind that? It was the first time i've closed an afd and was somewhat unsure about it, although keeps seemed more prolific--Jac16888 (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I saw that. :) In my mind, most no consensus closes aren't too different from unambiguous keep closes. In this case I saw a few well reasoned delete votes and some discussion between keep/delete votes. For me, that looks more like no consensus. the result, of course, is identical. I think a keep close for me would be 1-2 delete votes and the rest "keep" (assuming they all were made in good faith and gave some reasonable grounds to support their position). I know that seems very muddled, but that's the reasoning. Protonk (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK hook

I've put this here rather than on the talkpage as I think an extended debate there will only tie up resources and raise temperatures. I'd hope you agree that raising this issue on a centralised discussion point for the whole project about the whole mainpage is hopefully a better way to go, and is perhaps long overdue. I apologise if you already know the history behind this, but from what you were saying I got the feeling you didn't, and I could see the whole scenario of just a couple of months ago repeating itself.

The main thing is that there are two viewpoints here. I personally feel the same way about this article/hook being on wikipedia as I do about one on tropical storms. I've no real interest in reading either of them (I just want to be left in peace with my articles on ships and obscure 18th century admirals), but if someone wants to, I have no issue with that. But it is controversial. You have had several editors flat out oppose this, perhaps remembering the last controversy that played out here (and on several other pages of the archives) over a DYK hook that featured scantily clad women. If you want this hook to appear, please do secure some general agreement from the entire project. Because a debate over what constitutes 'good taste' and how far it should inform our thinking has led to angry and bitter recriminations, a lot of ink being spilt, a personal desysopping by Jimbo Wales and rifts that have still not healed. WP:TFA has come in for flak over its use of the mainpage, and have adjusted how they work accordingly. I wasn't trying to compel you in anyway, but I think it makes good sense to be aware of what they do and why, because we use the same space. This may well be time for a project wide discussion of the use of the mainpage, drawing on all of the areas that use it, and as many people as possible. Maybe an RFC? Please understand my main concern is not over whether the hook is in good taste or not, or whether it amounts to porn, or anything like that, it's trying to handle this in the most diplomatic and efficient way possible. This is just a ham-fisted attempt to promote a wider resolution beyond the narrow confines of that DYK hook.

And on a related note (and trying to keep the mood light) haha you said 'stiffen' :) Benea (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. I should have said earlier that I watched the bedford/DYK/arbcom/ANI shenanigans while it happened. Part of that mess was the controversial content, but most of it was people jumping in and making completely unilateral decisions about main page content. I don't foresee this particular DYK morphing into that. I'll contemplate making an RfC about this (know a good location for discussion?) but won't do it until after this particular nom expires. I just cruised by the page (checking up on my really very staid article seen above) and saw the discussion, so I joined in. As far as that goes, I have no horse in the race. I respect the fact that wikipedia is represented by the work in DYK/ITN/TFA. The pressure people are put under in those forums is non-trivial. I also understand that expectations of decorum exist there that don't exist for the rest of the project. That said, I don't want to see an article like Cohen v. California pushed off the main page because the blurb would almost certainly have to include "Fuck the Draft". I'm not equating Hustler's cheap porn with political protest, just noting that some dim connection exists. Protonk (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Twinkle reverts

Very well, information noted. I must ask, however, what the reason is to not using Twinkle to revert his edits? Thanks ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see; thanks for the information :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up the World War I Aces list

(Being an attempt to have our cake, eat it also, and maybe get a little extra icing.)

Site at present is 644 names loading as 96 kilobytes, with the present cutoff point being 10 or more victories (with a few listings for lower scores). This is approximately a third of the total 1861 World War I aces. It becomes apparent that Trevor MacInnis’s concept of listing all the aces in a single table is impossible, as site size will burgeon to about 250 KB. I have halted expansion of the list and previously discussed this with him, and he suggested breaking out the list by nationalities, or by listing them alphabetically by last name. (Details on my talk page.)

I believe the list as constituted has a very real value. Scanning it gives an idea of the contribution of each nation’s fighter pilots. It also gives an idea of the relative strengths or weaknesses of the air services of the various nations. Other concepts, such as the contributions of the Commonwealth to Britain’s cause, also become apparent.

I believe some version of the present list should be preserved, even if it is presently large enough to be slow loading on dialup connections and on older servers. However, I do think the list could be trimmed to a shorter, quicker loading version than the present one without damaging its value. I also believe the complete listing envisioned by Trevor is of historic value. We are on the brink of becoming the most complete archive extant on this subject; www.theaerodrome.com is presently pre-eminent, in my estimation.

I have been mulling this over for some time (obviously), and fiddling with figures. Here is what I have come up with thus far.

If the cutoff point is 20 victories or more, and the list is truncated, then the various nationalities of aces are represented thus:

Nationality Aces listed/total aces

Australia 8 aces out of 75 total

Austria-Hungary 4/49

Belgium 1/6

Canada 24/192

England 34/595

France 14/182

Germany 74/393

Ireland 2/33

Italy 5/45

New Zealand 2/13

Russia 1/15

Scotland 6/67

South Africa 7/46

USA 2/123

Wales 3/23

It can be seen that all the nationalities that had fighter aces are represented. Most list between 10% and 20% of their aces as scoring 20 or more victories. Those that don’t show the weakness of their air effort—the Russian and Austro-Hungarian air forces were mal-organized and the Americans were latecomers. The other exception, the English, still have a large listing.

At any rate, the 187 aces that scored 20 or more victories would thus comprise a list of about 28 KB.

If the entire list of 1861 aces was also broken down into separate national lists by the above nationalities, they would also be small, easily loadable pages with two possible exceptions: England and Germany.

England, with 595 aces, comprises a complete list near the size of the one we now have. However, without the Country column with its graphics, I intuit the site size would be tolerable. (Your opinion on this would be most welcome; you are probably more knowledgeable than I on this.)

Germany is a lesser version of the same problem, with 393 aces.

I am bringing this to your attention as an administrator because it is an administrative problem.

Consider it an unsolicited staff study with recommendations for a solution. In other words, there may be some more improving ideas out there.

With an eye toward this, I am also submitting this to others on my talk page who have expressed interest: Milborne1, Trevor MacInnis, Scoop100, Panth, and Canglesea. You may wish to send it to others you may think interested.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Melia Jansen

First off, thanks for handling the block. Second, someone might want to keep tabs on her after the block expires as I have reason to believe that she is also engaging in some wikistalking. I have found that she has commented on a lot of the same AFD's I have recently, and not just the ones on the same day. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll keep an eye out. My guess is that they discovered all of these "evil" AfD/CfD contributors when their article went up for deletion and voiced their outrage at obvious targets. If it keeps up we can extend the block. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Image:TrangBang.jpg

Through a mistake or though ignorance you deleted Image:TrangBang.jpg. The rule is if the rational doesn't fit for its use in a particular article, the image is deleted from THE ARTICLE, not from Wikipedia. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• done, thanks. Protonk (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Tove Jansson and childrens culture Reverse ... image deleted

Hi there,

Why was this image deleted, and me, one of the contributors of the image, was never informed of a dispute for deletion? The article that uses the image was not informed either. I am sure I can provide the right fair-use rationale of the image. Can you please revert the deletion and open back the dispute?

I just found that it was deleted because it is in my watch list.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sure I can. I'm clearing out backlogged image deletion queues, so any image on there has been listed for >7 days and not disputed (by either removing the tag or adding a dispute template). Give me a min. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Protonk (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast action, license changed, hopefully will be ok now. Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Man Who Sold the World

Would you mind reinstating the above image? My recollection was that there was no FUR for its use on the listed song articles, but not that there was no rationale for its use in the album article. In that case the action should have been to delete the image from the song articles, not delete the image wholesale. If I'm wrong and there was no FUR for its use in the album article, my apologies and I'll add the album FUR when the image is restored. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sure thing, as you can see above, I was moving too fast through the image CSD cats and deleted images with fair use justifications for some articles and not for others rather than just those with no or disputed fair use justifications. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tiananmen Square

Unless I'm mistaken, the image you deleted Image:Tiananmen Square protests.jpg DID have rationale, for use in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article. The no rationale tag was for the Replicas of the Statue of Liberty. Simply removing the image from the offending article would have been sufficient. Please restore the image.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• See above, I'm moving way too fast. Probably be cleaning up after myself for a few hours... Sorry. It's restored. In the future, please put a disputed tag on images like that so that guys like me have a harder chance at mucking things up. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the tag was clear. There was never a request to delete the image. There was only a request to establish rationale for the additional article. Thank you for restoring the image. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Tennesseestateseallrg.png

I'm confused by the deletion of this image. It is (or rather was) used in at least 7 different articles, specifically:

• Tennessee
• Butler Act
• Seals of the U.S. states
• Tennessee General Assembly
• Seal of Tennessee
• List of Tennessee state symbols
• List of Tennessee-related topics

At least one of these articles had a long-standing fair-use rationale, and I wrote at least one additional fair-use rationale for the image. I don't understand how it could have been deleted for "CSD I6, Missing non-free use rationale." If this was a mistake, please restore it. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing a speedy-deletion notice on this image. I do recall seeing a request for additional fair-use rationales... --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the image. --Orlady (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Template:Di-missing article links places images in Category:Disputed non-free images. If that category is assumed to identify deletable images, that's a big problem, because the template is only supposed to identify articles where the image is not appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily removing conversations for a moment.

I fucked up BIG TIME and deleted a number of FU images which were under the disputed fair use category. I'm in the process of attempting to restore some of them right now, so if you are here because of that, I'm trying to fix the problem i created. some have become corrupted so I'm trying to find replacements. This is not an awesome time right now. I'm not archive burning, those conversations will be back. This is just here to let you know that I'm working on ti and not blowing you off. Protonk (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Images I can't fix right now

Image:UAE_FA.jpg

Image:U2 Sunday Bloody Sunday.ogg

Image:U-t-bm.jpg

Image:U 155 after being refitted for war duty.jpg

Some others in there as well. Some I've found new versions but there is some server error after the upload form.

Check the prior deleted revisions, usually there's only one version actually cached and you have to restore only that specific revision. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of them I did, right now I'm just throwing up anyone that gives me restore or upload errors. The first four on the list gave me persistent errors (Even after I found the original image and attempted to reupload, so I just made this list and moved on. Protonk (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess the servers haven't really caught up since the Sept08 crash. I managed to restore a few of these, good luck with the rest ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you're done so I can have ImageRemovalBot undo its recent work. --Carnildo (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've recovered Image:Smarterchild screenshot.jpg and Image:Steatopygia.jpg. --Carnildo (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Haydn op20 Movement 3.OGG

You deleted this image. However, there is a discussion of this image going on right now at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair_use_of_media_to_illustrate_points_about_a_piece_of_classical_music, which may well result in a decision that the image not be deleted. I noted this on the talk page of the image. I think it would be proper to await the resolution of that discussion before deleting the image.

Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sleeping

If I deleted your image post here (or get any admin to reverse the decision, I won't mind) and I'll restore it in the morning (CST). Protonk (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there; could you look into restoring the images Image:UCD Dublin.png and Image:UCDFormalArms.png? (The image pages have returned, but not the images themselves.) --Kwekubo (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a crack, but what I've had to do for each of the images with errors is find the original and re-upload it. Fortunately that's something that anyone can do, so if you get to it first, that will work too. Again, sorry for causing the problem in the first place. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. If you're looking for any other images you could try Answers.com, their mirror of the Wikipedia database seems fairly recent. --Kwekubo (talk)

User:Melia Jansen block evasion

I've just blocked her IP address for a week for block evasion - see this diff [3] and her talk page. I think her Melia Jansen account should have its block extended also to match. Comments? dougweller (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Endorsation

Stop laughing at Canada:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's a perfectly cromulent word. :) Protonk (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Scrumtrulescent even;-)>--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tiferesyisrael48.jpg

In future, kindly inform the uploader of an image which you nominate for deletion. Please endevour to restore Image:Tiferesyisrael48.jpg so I can add the necessary info. Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UAE FA.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:UAE FA.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tibetan Go Board Image Deleted Without Consultation

I would appreciate it if my image http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:TibetBoard.gif&action=edit&redlink=1 was restored

You didn't even ask me before deleting it.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion query

If you can, please tell me for future reference the most direct route to achieve the following:

1. Correctly upload and tag an image that is a screenshot of a Wikipedia page which has display problems so I may easily demonstrate the problems to a user or group of users. (My original upload example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Jza84_bug.jpg&oldid=250804762)
2. Display the image in a talk page subpage without having it removed by a bot. (Page history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Jza84_bug.jpg&action=history)
3. Correctly tag such an image for speedy deletion when it is no longer needed.

Please also speedy delete the image Image:Jza84_bug.jpg and the associated talk subpage, User:Sswonk/jza84. I am not seeing the image itself in CAT:SPEEDY. If I did the CSD process in the proper way, let me know and I apologize for asking you to do this, otherwise advise me on what I should do next time I want to help a user or users see a display issue. Sswonk (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll try to answer your questions one by one.

1. You can upload a screenshot of wikipedia under the Wikipedia:Upload by selecting "an image from a website". This will lead you to an upload form with a lot of warnings and admonitions. Label your file as usual and under the licenses dropdown menu, select GNU Free documentation License (should be under freely licensed). Remember, this is only possible for websites that release all content under the GFDL (like wikipedia) and whose underlying software is also free (Mediawiki is released under the GPL). This license tag will let the bots know that the image is free, and therefore can be used in places other than articles. For an example of what this would look like in the end, see Image:Wikipedia basic navigation.png.
2. If the image you upload is free (as in, released under the public domain in some way), then it may be used outside of article space. If the image you upload is non-free (like a still from a movie or a logo for a company), then it will be automatically removed if placed on a talk page (or other non-article pages). You may still link to these images by putting a colon before the filename, like so [[:Image:yourimagehere.jpg]]. Where [[Image:yourimagehere.jpg]] would directly display the image.
3. As far as I can tell, you correctly tagged the image for deletion. You may have to purge the CSD page to get the image to show up and (as CSD is a category), you may have to wait a little while before it shows up there.

• Does that answer your questions? Protonk (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. When I uploaded the image I chose "A screenshot taken of a movie, TV program, computer game, web site, computer program, music video, or other such source" rather than "an image from a website". Obviously my choice was more accurate than "an image from a website", and when one chooses "screenshot" the upload page that follows offers "Wikipedia web page screenshot" under the licensing drop down but the template given for the summary is {{Non-free use rationale}}, which is why it got bot removed. Choosing "an image from a website" on the first upload page gives the {{Information}} template for summary information on the subsequent page. Maybe there should be another choice on the main upload screen, something like "Screenshot taken of a Wikipedia page" that gives the {{Information}} template as the default on the next upload page, and then warns about including the Wikipedia logo or other possibly non-free images in the screenshot? At any rate, I'll use your suggestion for now. Thanks -- Sswonk (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about the "screenshot" idea, too. My best guess is that the upload menu is written to nudge people toward marking something as non-free (As that is what most images out there are) rather than free by default. This causes some oddities in selecting the "right" template. Protonk (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting me at my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in a BLP essay at User:Dennis Brown/Missing person. Coat and tie are not required. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lupercal Institute

You seem to have AfD tagged it at the same point I speedied it – feel free to undelete if you really think it warrants the full saga. – iridescent 05:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm inertia driven, so I'll leave it at that. Hopefully this doesn't turn into some full blown issue at AN/I like the last speedied hoax did. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, ANI exists to give people in a bad mood a place to argue amongst themselves, to keep them out of mischief elsewhere. IAR is a core policy (in whichever version of the rules you subscribe to), as is WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. "Read 200kb of wikilawyering flames every day and feel obliged to pay attention to them" is not. When there's any possible doubt that something's a hoax then yes, AfD is a good thing; when it's blatant, the only reason it's ever worth going through the whole mess is to get enough of a consensus to salt and/or G4 it. – iridescent 05:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

.  :) Oh I agree. I think this would be less of an issue if the hoax template looked more like the copyvio template. We could AfD hoaxes and not feel irresponsible. Protonk (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Image question

Is it possible to undelete Image:Tnaturningpoint2004.jpg? See I was non-aware of the license problem and would be glad to fix it if it is possible to get the image back. There is no other image available besides that one.--WillC 08:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Done. That was my fault, not an underlying problem with the image. Let me know if you need anything else. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, thanks again. I was working on the ppv before that one (Victory Road (2004)) the other night and decided to look at Turning Point (2004) and noticed the image was removed. Looked through the history and saw it was deleted. Found out you were the one that deleted it so I just thought to ask to get it restored. No telling how long it would have been until I had found the poster at another website. It is a life saver, I plan on working on Turning Point soon and would like to had the poster when I took it to GA. Thanks for restoring it.--WillC 06:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

I've placed myself on editor review at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Cosmic_Latte, and I'm reaching out for feedback to editors who seem to be reasonably familiar with my work. If you have a moment to comment there, your feedback would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000

Sure, I'll look into the article. I happen to be quite busy with school as well, so I can't do too much. I'm a recovering wikipediholic. Tealwisp (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AN discussion

I think the discussion that we both participated discusses a problem that is probably unsolvable. I've seen a lot of less than desirable behavior on the part of established users. It's expected in new users but not really excusable for established users.

Happy editing. Chergles (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mitt Romney.jpg

RE:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 24#Image:Mitt Romney.jpg. All instances of Image:Mitt Romney.jpg have been replaced by prior free image. Speedy i9 is a go.--HoboJones (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Hey Protonk, I just wanted to let you know that I accepted the unblock request of Rockyobody (talk · contribs) based on the user's agreement to comply with copyright rules. Cheers, — Scientizzle 00:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully the problem doesn't recur. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Right now it's difficult getting the editor to realize that s/he is actually unblocked... — Scientizzle 03:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2: Lost Coast peer review request

Hey there, remember the article that you reviewed for GAN a few weeks ago? Well, we're gunning for FAC now :) If you've got time, could you peer review it at Wikipedia:Peer review/Half-Life 2: Lost Coast/archive1? I would very much appreciate it. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock worked

Thanks, it took a little while but it worked. Thanks again. Rockyobody (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not a problem. IF you need any help with image uploads, let me or any other admin know and we will be happy to help you find the right non-free content rationale or verify that the content is indeed free. Protonk (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Rockyobody

The recently released from blockage user Rockyobody (talk · contribs) added Barack Obama to the Usama (name) disambiguation page. Here is the diff. I figured that I would tell you, since you were involved in his most recent blocking.--HoboJones (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Giving Thanks

Happy Thanksgiving, even if you aren't somewhere that you celebrate it. Gobble gobble gobble. Thanks for your calmness and civility. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting notability and importance tags

Since I was the one that did so I will explain, in case you are unaware of the particulars. The user in question only tags articles, effects no work on them, and dictates to users of these articles how they should be done per his guidelines. No discussion is ever made on the talk pages of these tagged articles, and the only articles this user decides to work on are those regarding roleplaying games, or which the editor has no knowledge of the subject matter, and has been stated and proven time and again this to be true. This editor fails to work with consensus of other editors, and acts in a manner as that described in Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing. This user has been asked by many editors spanning several wikiprojects, and hundreds of articles, including a medation person and several admins to work with other people, but refuses to do so and instead goes to argue with people and tell them his way should be what people listen to. This can only be viewed as vandalism since there is a clear agenda in some minds that the intent is to destroy these articles or push the editors POV. The inclusion of the warning on the users talk page is to try a last resort working with the editor to show them how the members of the wikiproject feel his actions are without resorting to more drastic measures such as ANI or whatever it is called. if disruptive editing is not vandalism, then please explain on said users talkpage, as the warning used and edit comments in regards tot hose articles were the only ones that showed what the intent of discussion was without the one that actually stated "disruptive editing" as that one mentions a pending block of the users account, which no one invloved in the project has authority to do to my knowledge. After a failed RfC, and failed RfM, what else can be done to get this editor to behave more civil not only within the RPG articles, but the other areas, this editor wishes to be uncivil to anyone he disagrees with? Feel free to respond here, my talk page, or the D&D wikiproject, and I will try to check back here for further information or suggestions on this matter. shadzar-talk 22:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• That's all fine and good, but Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing is specifically excluded as a type of vandalism. See Wikipedia:VAND#NOT. There are a host of unpleasant and objectionable editing methods that are not vandalism. Marking his edits as such does not help the situation. As for the resolution, you need to clearly establish what he has tagged, where people can work on it and where people disagree with the tag. If people disagree with the tag, they should remove it with a descriptive edit summary (or perhaps a reasoning on talk). If they agree with it, they should leave it be. If they think they can effect change to the article in order to fix the problem they should do that. What you must not do is revert the tags without commentary or demand that only vested contributors may place or remove tags. If he persists in tagging articles, refuses discussion and/or edit wars over the tags, make a post to AN/I. I hope this helps a bit. I'm sorry that this is happening, for all parties involved. Protonk (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• He tags about 60 articles per day on average. people try to address them on the article talk pages, but he refuses. The only place he responds is with C&D orders on peoples talk pages, or when people put something on his talk page. People DO give descriptive edit summaries when his tags are removed, but he reverts those to replace the tag saying X was not done so replacing the tag, where X is just the tag itself, example being "notability is not proven" for X. He is the one tagging and such without commentary other than his demands that the tag must remain, and that other editors have no right to remove it because they feel the tag was the incorrect tag, or incorrect for the article where he has no vested interest in the articles and is not even knowledgeable about the subject matter at all other than he has heard of RPGs and these roleplaying games must conform to WP:book guidelines and WP:fiction guidelines even though they are game manuals. We are trying to do what we can without having to resort to AN/I after this two years, but we are missing a key person, Jeske Curiano, who is without internet access indefinately that was or strongest glue for keeping us together and working under WP policies...since admins know them better than us normal editor flunkies. Thanks for the help and explanations, and I will tell the concerned project members to look here for your added insight into what we should probably do to get this issue resolved to further develop and "cleanup" wikipedia articles. shadzar-talk 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• If there isn't communication I wouldn't feel too bad about taking it to AN/I. Be mindful that you need to combat the appearance of a jealous project attempting to control the appearance of the article. Likewise (despite his lack of communication) be prepared for the community at large to say that his tagging is relatively accurate (regardless of his methods). But that shouldn't stop you from seeking some resolution. If AN/I doesn't work you can always try mediation. If you find a mediator and if he agrees to mediation that could be pretty productive. Protonk (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with citations

You have a talent, it seems, for magically producing third-party citations for obscure topics. I am in the middle of rewriting the article on military spacecraft and could use some undeniably reliable third-party sources to verify the notability of the scifi section. I don't expect trouble finding sources for the upcoming section on real-world military spacecraft, but anything you might have in that department would be appreciated. Naturally, I would also like to invite you to contribute to the article. Tealwisp (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility discussions

I found the civility restrictions discussion interesting and would appreciate being notified of other discussions regarding civility. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll let you know. I plan to close that RfC shortly (it has run much longer then 30 days) and I'll try and write another one to get at some more specifics within the month of December. I actually am very surprised at the direction and volume of responses. I figured that the black and white issue was civility restrictions, not the part on low level incivility. Turns out I was 100% wrong! Protonk (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Seductive Poison edits by My2sense2wikip on ANI

He's repeated the pattern I think 5 times now.

I started an ANI discussion. It is here if you want to weigh in.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a more effective unblock request than this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. "I wasn't pushing a POV...now let me tell you about this POV I was pushing!" Protonk (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Protonk,

I appreciate your acknowledgement that user Mosedschurte was edit warring too, but you are mistaken to say that I did a revert from IP address (69.22.221.46). That never was my IP address and I don't know how you've come to that conclusion it was ever my IP address. here. All my edits so far should have been from the exact same IP address as the account from this edit. If there are other accounts from this IP address, I am unaware of them and they are not sockpuppets. At least 2 other people share the current IP address which this message is being posted.

I also appreciate your acknowledgement that what I posted was not vandalism.

I was not aware of the three revert rule and see no reason why I would want to revert more than 3 times after a 24 hour period.

If you find it in your administrative duty to agree these childish, stubborn and combative persistent demands by Mosedschurte that those references be removed, all I ask is a better explanation far more scholarly and rational from a seasoned professiona, arbitrator and moderator rather than parroting Mosedschurte's combative, stubborn, outlandish, juvenile, childish, infantile, and mentally retarded boldfaced lies and condemnation that this reference John Judge at ratical.org, is all about espousing the extremist fringe theory that "Jonestown was an experiment, part of a 30-year program called MK-ULTRA, the CIA and military intelligence code name for mind control", in violation of WP:Reliable sources. The Black hole of Guyana names pertinent names and roles to the subject of the article as far as I can see and even if it is espousing some strong accusation, I see no reason why that fact discredits the valid information pertinent to the article. The alleged extremist fringe theory is entirely up to the party responsible for clicking on this reference to decide. The purpose of this reference is to give interested readers who Deborah Layton's a clue who George Phillip Blakey was and mention he was her husband/consort/derjur was while in Jonestown. People like Mosedschurte clearly have an agenda to prevent people on wikipedia from knowing about this information. My2sense2wikip (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if that article is considered "extremist fringe theory" by wikipedia guidelines. It's even worse that Mosedschurte would continuously censor this reference:

Deborah Layton is the daughter of the late Laurence Laird Layton

This is an undisputed well recognized mainstream link to her father's background. There is no sane explanation why Laurence Laird Layton's obituary link can't be included either and I don't appreciate the continued liberty that you as a wikipedia moderator and all your responsibility would continue to allow such a bigoted and obtuse individual like Mosedschurte to run rampant censoring the free thinking flow of information of notable people VERY PERTINENT to the article. My2sense2wikip (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC) RE-posted My2sense2wikip (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is the second time you've posted this here. I have no desire whatsover to delve into theories regarding Jonestown or anything else. I'm not sure what you want me to do. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

All I want you to do is find better reasons to block someone in the future and quit assuming just because there's a bunch of recurring reverts that it's always the same culprit. The (69.22.221.46) address was not my edit. My2sense2wikip (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have no technical means at my disposal to determine without a doubt if that was or was not your IP address. What I did have at my disposal was the knowledge that the IP was previously blocked for edit warring on very similar subjects doesn't edit for ~15 days and then makes a single edit in the middle of an edit war undoing a change that reverted one of your edits. Since the edit war was effectively over when I blocked them, they would have made other edits (maybe) in the interim if it was someone simply interested in the content. I concluded that it was reasonable to treat that IP as your or related to yours. I still feel that is the case. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Cruro

Thanks. Abyssal (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tobin

Please reverse your undeletion immediately. There is no established consensus for this. Many of those commenting are illinformed of the facts (one user says not to delete for the police only the courts - and it was the courts). With BLPs we keep deleted until we are sure, and we are not sure. Had this been a deletion for any other reason, we would have given it 5 days on DRV, whilst this deletion was overturned in 4 hours. UK editors are not even home from work and school with time to comment at this stage. There is NO harm in waiting another few hours in such circumstance. Please redelete and wait a bit.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• thanks for the note. I read this on AN and replied there. Protonk (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsugumi Takakura

On this afd you said people are welcome to listify, merge or redirect. But why didn't you vote to redirect yourself? It's a plausible search term and it would actually help listification or merging and discourage recreation. It's impossible to listify something that is deleted (at least for most users) - Mgm|^(talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Martha Speaks Wikia

You fool! You deleted this page! I wish I'm not in Wikipedia anymore.

Pro-moron Marcellusb (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure that's just an unlucky string of typos there, and not a personal attack. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

4chan

I'm not trying to be mean or anything about the deletion of that 4chan lolcat section, the article just does not say specifically that 4chan was the website "I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?" was posted on, and the lolcat article contradicts it by saying it was Something Awful. It says that "Do Not Want" followed that macro, nowhere does it say it's a response (it's actually completely unrelated to lolcats in origin but I'll let that slide). O RLY was a meme independent of Caturday, originating in 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_RLY%3F), it did not come from the 'lolcat' meme, and the article says that it was just around at the same time, nothing else. Finally that pic felt like it was somebody's self promotion and definitely did not originate on 4chan, but you're free to move it back if you can find it a new caption. I'm not saying this just from experience, this facts are proven and Wikipedia contradicts itself by including that section. Sam 08:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how that pic is self promotion, unless that cat has a talent agency. As for the facts of the matter: NYT, WSJ and Wired all say that "I can haz cheeseburger" started on 4chan. We know the imageboards started on SA and ppl moved to /b/ after being banned from SA (lol). Whether or not another wikipedia article contradicts the 4chan one is unimportant in my mind. Unless you have a reliable source (not personal experience) that this is not the case, I would ask that you return the section to the way it was. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I know "lolcats" obviously comes from 4chan, but the specific phrase "I can haz cheeseburger", according to the source on the lolcat article, derived from Something Awful, which I personally believe to be false. You can add that the phrase also came from 4chan if you cite one of those sources, but as for everything else it was all completely untrue and derived from misinterpretations of that article. O RLY existed long before what some people refer to as "lolcats", it definitely did not derive from it, and the article says nothing about it coming from there, you can check, yet in the entry it stated that O RLY was an lolcat variation. "DO NOT WANT" is not a response to "I can haz cheeseburger", it comes from a badly translated bootleg copy of Revenge of the Sith, and even the source that was provided states that it "followed," nowhere in it does it say it was a response to the question. That also makes the image caption inaccurate. The image itself is definitely not from 4chan, in fact it was somebody's own macro from Flickr made on an online generator, and does not belong on the 4chan page. And as far the picture goes itself, the image has little if nothing to do with the picture itself, so I don't even see it as being an accurate representation of what it's trying to replicate or represent.Sam 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Tobin

I've enjoyed our discussion immensely, but will need to pause for now. Have a good day --Trödel 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• thanks. Me too. Have a good day/night/evening. Protonk (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)