User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 11

Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

XPLANE

Just a quick note to say thanks for your help and advice Proto.Dgray xplane 16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

For your information

Professions (World of Warcraft) on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Professions (World of Warcraft). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE

Hi Proto, XPLANE is also up for deletion review, along with a proposed article which I think is much improved, which can be viewed at User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE. I'd appreciate your input, along with any recommendations you might have for improvement. Thanks!Dgray xplane 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am hoping to get a chance to review earlier versions of the article which may assist in writing an improved version. In the "special logs" you pointed me to, it says you restored 41 revisions but I can't find them anywhere. Can you point me to a link or something? Thanks in advance.Again I apologize for not knowing the ropes!Dgray xplane 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

never mind -- found it!

Update: After reading some of the more thoughtful opinions expressed on the deletion review, I am gaining a greater appreciation of your decision. I do believe you are working in good faith. Just thought you should know.Dgray xplane 16:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

Hi Proto. You are so cool and awesome. Remember to look into Category:Computer and video game cheating when you get a chance. Hugs, Proto::type 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairmont Preparatory Academy

Before starting a WP:DRV I would like to investigate your reasoning for deciding to delete the article for Fairmont Preparatory Academy. Regardless of any other standards and criteria mentioned that you may personally disagree with, an explicit and sourced claim of notability was made based on recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program awarded by the United States Department of Education, considered to be the highest honor that an American school can achieve. This claim was backed up with relevant, reliable sources from the United States Department of Education, provided to document the school's receipt of this award. I must also question your dissection of the intent and reasoning of the votes of those who chose to keep this article, while ignoring utterly nonsensical gibberish votes ("because of, as the title states, being non notable") and several other unsupported and unargued variations of "non notable". Claims of non-notability included a claim that the Blue Ribbon Award is non-notable, a claim that is clearly contradicted at the Blue Ribbon Schools Program article. While I would love to see those voting to keep an article demonstrate some more substance regarding their logic, the fact that an arbitrarily high standard of argument was upheld in only one direction, while ignored in the other, is at best inconsistent. There is no clear reasoned consensus for deletion, even with your throwing out votes, other than based on ignoring the notability of the award, which is entirely unsupported by the facts. I strongly urge you to reconsider this as a "keep" based on the demonstrated proof of notability, or at a minimum to overturn this deletion as a "no consensus". Alansohn 00:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Any response will be helpful in understanding your decision and in deciding a course of action to address the ramifications of your choice to delete the article. Alansohn 16:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I would strongly prefer to address this issue directly, rather than drag this into WP:DRV. As you have made other edits after your talk page was updated, I am starting to develop serious concerns about your good faith in addressing these issues. Any response will help understand your reasoning before exposing it to public scrutiny. Alansohn 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      Responded on Alan's talk page (nb, now has gone to DRV. Proto::type 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2

Just wanted you to know, I struck a duplicate !vote from you in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2; looks like you !voted as #25, then again as #58. Happens all the time, nothing to worry about, but I wanted you to know I'd done it. Essjay (Talk) 11:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bot blocked

I'm aware that it has been blocked, I think that I've resolved the problem. Thanks for letting me know, though. Shadow1 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seige tactics

Hey, there is a page i proposed to be deleted. would you mind nominating it for deletion or deleting it. it links to a page called Muhammad Islam. who hasnt done anything noteworthy of being included on wiki. thanks. Rarechords 02:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake - I was unsure of how bold a move that would be. Apologies if I wasted people's time. riana_dzasta 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Complication with article for deletion

Hi Proto, for this article [1], I had sincerely voted to "speedy delete" this article. However a person on the other side of the debate launched a Checkuser case on me, with evidence which I feel is inconclusive. Elalan the other wikipedian who was caught in the mess volunteered to do a checkuser on himself and me. Here is the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan. The checkuser raises further lingering doubts, so I would sincerely like to recuse myself of the vote and unduely impact Elalan's credibility. I feel this is honorable thing to do. Trincomanb 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The AFD is already closed, so it does not matter. Proto::type 16:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD of Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE

Hey Proto, you decided to delete the article after considering the AFD. I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that. You're 2 reasons for deletion were

1st that there is a consensus in favor of deletion, which clearly isn't correct. The final votes were Delete 5 (disregarding the sockpuppet of the nominator), Keep 9, Merge 3. I don't see a consensus there, even if you disregard the votes of Melissahutchison (talk · contribs) and LovesEverybody (talk · contribs) who have only voted on AFDs and in any case haven't been proven as scokpuppets of anyone.

Your second reason and what you said was your main reason was it was a "collection of external links", which is absolutely not correct. The only external links in the article were the citations. I believe you made an error there.

So it will be awesome :) if you can you please review your decision to delete the article. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

userboxes

I've tried very hard to avoid the userbox discussion since the debacle at the beginning of this year. I was shocked to run across some today that seemed to run afoul of the final (to me) decisions I had read. Could you supply me with a link to the current policy thereof? Thanks, ... aa:talk 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Proto, Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE and Notable attacks by the LTTEare 2 entirely different pages, There was an AFD for Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE but as far as I know there was no AFD for Notable attacks by the LTTE. So you have deleted an article for which there was no AFD. Also the creation date of Notable attacks by the LTTE predates Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE so it cant be called a fork. I dont think there are more than 5 overlapping incidents between these two pages, so you really cannot use teh AFD for one page to justify the deletion of another page. Finally all the people who voted for deletion of Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE did so on the basis that the title is not neutral and that some incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government. These reasons wont justify the deletion of Notable attacks by the LTTEbecause 1. No one complained about the title and 2. I dont think any of the incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government. Dutugemunu 11:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Take it to the DRV. They are two seperate pages, but with overlapping and identical content means it's effectively the same article and the AFD is valid for both. I will restore the notable attacks one, happily, if the DRV indicates as such. Proto::type 11:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Proto, thanks for restoring the notabel attacks page. But I still think you should take account of the merge votes and merge the terrorist attacks page into the notable attacks page.Would you agree to the conflict resolution processDutugemunu 14:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Proto, you did the right think, but those who want to add to the article of Notable attacks by the LTTE can and should do the hard work themselves rather than expect someone to do it for them. Currently it looks like a thinly veiled propaganda piece, it can be done so much better because LTTE has given the world enough attacks and information to write about in an encyclopedic manner. Just my opinionRaveenS 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree Proto did the right thing and restored the article that was not up for deletion. However the article that was up for deletion broke every rule on wikipedia. There was no hiding it. Having blatant government propaganda articles has NO chance of survival on wikipedia as has been shown countless times. I would suggest Dutugemunu and others make that realization. Thanks, Elalan 15:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairmont Preparatory Academy on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fairmont Preparatory Academy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Alansohn 12:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Hiatt Baker

Why get rid of a whole article, that people have contributed to, and set it back to the redirect? I Have reinstated the article, as well as added some recent news Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the hall is not notable, and it's a better option than having to go through AFD, where it would be deleted, anyway. Also, please don't use a tempate for your signature. Proto::type 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

are wills hall or churchill hall also up for deletion then? i think not? please i request that this article not be deleted Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

LTTE

Just passing through to give you a thumbs-up for undeleting that article. I don't blame you for being confused, it took me a while to sort through the mess of past move-warring, POV-pushing and argumentation. Nor is it going to make FA any time soon. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello. I wonder if your only objection to my request was that I "need to learn that we do warn vandals", because I already do know that, so I don't need to learn anything more in that respect. Is it the fact that I haven't warned vandals in the past, or the notion that I would block them on sight that caused you to vote no? Because if the latter, I didn't mean to convey that impression. I certainly would give the appropriate warnings before taking the appropriate blocking action. Biruitorul 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Season 3, episode 7 (Lost)

Okay, for one thing, I only posted that as a placeholder for the episode where information surrounding the episode could be found, and to stop people creating the Not in Portland page over and over again. Secondly, this is hardly disruptive and worthy of a block! It's not like I'm vandalising the article or anything, I just know now not to do it again. --SilvaStorm

Hi Proto. I noticed you gave this user a 'final warning' on their talk page. They have since continued their disruption by blanking talk pages and deleting AfD notices. i.e: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Rafy 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
  2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
  3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We've already gone to press for this week, but your responses would be added immediately, and you and other late-entering users would be noted in next week's issue as well. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

 Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 13:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Need your advice desperately

I need your advice on this matter. User snowolfd4 launched a sockpuppet case against me and user:Trincomanb with some dubious evidence, claiming voting fraud etc etc for one of the afd you wrapped. Your insight on this case would very relevant. I launched a checkuser on myself and Trincomanb hoping to sort this out. First it was rejected because I applied for it, then I got Sudharsansn to do it for me and here is the result [7]. The checkuser person thinks its "Likely" (sigh). Both of us have given a rebuttal for the results. Trincomanb upon hearing the checkuser results decided to strike out his vote in the afd + tfd and I am awaiting his defence in all of this. I would sincerely ask you to comment on the case [8] when you get a chance. Elalan 14:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding

Found this on the AFD for the Half Life 1 mods.

"The result was delete, despite sockpuppetry. Not one valid 'keep' vote. Proto::type 16:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)"

Founded on what? Did you user check every person who supported the keep for the nom? My keep vote was valid and not based on sockpuppetry. A mass majority of keeps was collected, and yet, you found it fit to declare that the debate, out of process, was a successful deletion. What do you intend? This, I believe, is a violation of WP:ASG and Wikipedia deletion policy. Rethink your actions seriously. In the meantime I'm putting the AfD up for review.--WaltCip 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Answered on Walt's talk page. Proto::type 09:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
NB, now at WP:DRV. Proto::type 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

List of Half-Life mods / List of Half-Life 2 mods

I didn't partake in the AFD, couldn't really be bothered. But instead of deleting and locking them, it would be a lot more useful to lock them as redirects to Category:Half-Life mods and Category:Half-Life 2 mods. If you can extend the AFD of Half-Life mods to Half-Life 2 mods, then you should probably do the same for every single mod list out there such as List of Battlefield 1942 mods, List of Call of Duty mods etc. I fail to see the difference between these list of mods and list of webcomics, but then again we've always pandered to the webcomic crowd. - hahnchen 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded on Hahnchen's talk page. Proto::type 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You probably need a : in front as Hahnchen suggested. Because the way you have done it, the redirect puts itself into the category, including all double redirects. --Pizzahut2 17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your AFD notice

Please note that the recent AFD notice on the conjectured Starfleet ranks will be removed if you do not create a page under "this article's entry" and explain why you want it to be deleted. I am guessing you are in the middle of doing that. A pointless endeavour, I think...the article as 17 references for the information contained within. I guess we will see. at least once its done, that will be the end of it. -Husnock 11:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a full four minutes(!) to create an AFD nomination before posting a message on my talk page threatening to remove the AFD notice. The AFD is now posted. Proto::type 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didnt know it was 4 minutes and was giving you a courtesy notice that the link was still red in case something had happened and the page hadnt been properly created. I see its created now. -Husnock 11:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and thanks, but goodness me, give a man a chance! :p Proto::type 12:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hiatt Baker Deletion, Redirect and Protection

i requested unprotection but my request has been denied; it appeared as follows:


Hiatt Baker Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page was previously protected with redirect to University of Bristol, requested unprotection which was granted ca. 20th March 2006. Have made various edits to the page since then. Returned on the 28th of november to update the page in light of recent, published news to find that the page had been changed back to a redirect to University of Bristol by user:Proto. Reverted and added news [9]. As of the 29th of november the page had been reverted and protected by User:Proto.

I believe this page should be reinstated because:

Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not unprotected I suggest you speak with Proto about that. --Majorly 18:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So i am here to talk it through with you, i think my points are valid, although i acknowledge that most people believe their opinions to be valid ;)

Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 18:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, That is much more helpful, i will use the xmas break to try and produce a suitable article Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 15:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

xspace redir

this is an xspace redir... not such a good idea... - crz crztalk 05:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Elalan

The open sockpuppetry case is at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Trincomanb, so there's somewhat more than just the checkuser result. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

Proto, why did you block me!? In any of the image sources of the images thet i uploaded there was any sign saying it was copyrighted! Felix Portier 6:27 pm Saturday 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The lack of any mention of the images being copyright does not mean there is no copyright; all it means is that we don't know if they are copyrighted, or free to use, or anywhere inbetween. You were told, more than once, that these images should not be uploaded, yet continued to do so. Proto::type 10:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki

Please treat your contributions to other projects with the careful attention you give to Wikipedia. Before completing a transwiki I would suggest you take a moment to read over the inclusion policy of a project. Failure to do this is the only reason I can come up with for why you put a list of quotes at s:Voltaire's views on race. Wikisource only takes complete works no excerpts as is clearly outlined in the inclusion policy.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I got Wikisource mixed up with Wikiquote whilst running through a bunch of transwikis. I hope that I will learn from my mistake. I don't know if you were able to remedy this terrible situation without any lasting damage, but let's keep our fingers crossed. Proto::type 10:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved to the wikiquote talk page of Voltaire and left it up to them to decide if they want to keep such content with no source, unknown copyright staus, and all attached comments and other history lost making it questionable under even the GFDL. Since I am not an admin at en.WP I cannot view the deleted edits to retreive the edit history and any accompanying comments. But I am sure someone at Wikiquote can find a way to complete the work if they really want the material (which I think it is unlikely considering the questions of copyright). This is more of a matter of alerting you to not making unneccessary work for people in the future rather than trying to actually getting you to fix the botched job which I did do my best to remedy. I have my fingers crossed that the rest of the "brunch of transwiki's" were done properly; preserving the edit history as per the GDFL requirements, but somehow I would not surprised if you paid as little attenition to the Transwiki instructions as you did the name of the project you were editing that day. Everyone has bad days that is fine, it is particularly annoying when someone with as much experience as you acts so flippently in regards to the importance of being attentive. I hope you have better days in the future!--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Portfolio for ArbCom

On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table, I added a column "Examples" with links that exhibit a candidate's arbitration skills. My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well.

So far I have entered examples for the candidates who registered first (from their questions page), and I'm not sure if and when I will get to yours, so you may want to enter an example or two yourself. — Sebastian (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

I've never been on the Arbitration Comittee before, so I'm afraid I can't give you any examples. Are you confusing arbitration with mediation? Proto::type 09:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You have a point. I don't really know the job description. (I guess Wikipedia:Arbitration policy can count as one, but it wasn't that obvious to me before. Apparently I'm not alone, given how many questions have been answered by "this is not part of ArbCom".) ArbComm seems to require less direct people skills than I had thought; so I probably overemphasized what I find one of the biggest problems here at Wikipedia: The lack of levelheadedness.
That said, I still believe in going by what people have actually done. Even if you haven't worn this exact hat before, I hope you can give us an example of something you've done that exhibits what in your view are important skills for the job. — Sebastian (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC), edited 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV

No problem at all thanks for letting me know. Its actually been my intention to provide a full synopsis of my reasoning on the AfD's talk, I'll certainly do my best to get that done ASAP. Thanks again ;)  Glen  10:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The White House

I re-added the address, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, because I think it's notable on it's own (sort of like 10 Downing Street). The address has its own disambiguation page, was part of the name of a musical and a movie (Murder at 1600), so on and so forth. Feel free to let me know if you disagree. Cheers. JCO312 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for letting me know. Proto::► 09:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Minesweeper (computer game)

I didn't want to revert your edit on this article immediately since I assume you weren't actually vandalising it, but what on earth do you mean by removing stupidity? I didn't think it was customary to remove all information on something just because its citation is not perfect. Is the citation the reason you did it, or do you simply not believe the scores? I assure you they're possible.SchuBomb 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The citation wasn't perfect? It didn't have one. Proto::► 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The Best-ever list linked is the citation I refer to. Maybe it isn't cited in the normal way, and it isn't as reputable as a newspaper or whatever, but you won't find better citation. If I cite everything properly with that source (and http://www.metanoodle.com/minesweeper/world.php as well), will I be safe from having it being reverted (at least by you anyway)?SchuBomb 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources - this is not a reliable source (anyone can create a website and claim to have the 'world record time for minesweeper'), so please don't reinclude this information; sooner or later, someone will remove it again. If you can find a reliable source, then by all means then include the information. Proto::► 09:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiatt Baker Hall

as requested i have attempted a rewrite of the Hiatt Baker Hall which can be found here: User:Mgumn/HBH

please leave comments underneath, i expect it is still a little longwinded for your liking, but i have followed the Wills Hall article as a template.

the article is not finished, but i wanted some feedback before i continued.

Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 11:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Aristasia

You closed the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aristasia) "delete", but it has been recreated. Not sure what should happen here, can you help? —Ashley Y 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have fixed it, so it's all good. Proto::► 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Chithra_Ramakrishnan

May i know the reson for the deletion of the article I created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chithra_Ramakrishnan . though me and bruno strngly objected and explained the reson behind the ghits. Webmediaconsultant 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you and Bruno aren't the only people who decide what should and should not be on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. The many other contributors to the AFD discussion all agreed the article should be deleted, and based their decisions on Wikipedia's policies. 11:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

List of convicted child sex offenders

I have restored this page. I can see no speedy deletion criterion that it meets; to be a candidate for speedy deletion an article must meet one of the criteria, and "duplicate of category" is not one of those criteria. I agree that it is not a particularly useful list as yet, but the principle remains. In addition, lists and categorisation serve different purposes - lists show red links that need to be created; cats only show articles that have already been created. -- Necrothesp 16:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In this instance, the list is worthless, as only those people notable enough to have an article appear on the list - and then they're already in the category. Nevertheless, I'll go via AFD. Proto::► 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, Wikipedia articles can be expanded you know...And the fact remains that it did not meet speedy deletion criteria. Being "worthless" (your opinion only) is not among those criteria, as a reading of WP:SPEEDY will quickly confirm. Speedy deletion criteria are fixed, not mutable to fit the opinions of admins. -- Necrothesp 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, a list is a list is a list is a list. Is a list. Expand it and it's not a list. Eh, wonkery aside, it's gone to AFD. Proto::► 20:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You expand it by adding to the list. Your statement that "only those people notable enough to have an article appear on the list" is only the case at the moment! -- Necrothesp 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The list is pointless. Either a) you add a name to the list when it has an article, or b) you add it to the list when it doesn't have an article.
If it does have an article, then it can go in the equivalent category, so the list entry is pointless. If it doesn't have an article, then you are either plumb stupid or incredibly naive if you think adding names to a list called 'Convicted child sex offenders' with no articles to provide the references for those claims is a remotely good idea. Proto::► 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anurag Singh

I had previously written an article about a different person called Anurag Singh before the article was replaced by text about a less-notable individual, and speedy deleted. I hope you don't mind, but I have reinstated the version I had previously written before it was deleted.

I will probably rewrite the article at some stage, too, but that's for later. Bobo. 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the heads-up. Agree the version you have recreated is definitely notable. Proto::► 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Canon (Star Trek)

I noticed you took out one of the "see also" links on the Canon (Star Trek) page. I can't quite understand your reasoning though. You said "don't refer to Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles". But the "See also" section is not references, it's links to other relevant pages in Wikipedia. And what could be more relevant to this page then another page on Star Trek canon? -- Ritchy 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ritchy, you zarking frood. Take a look at Wikipedia:Avoid self-references - linking to the page on the Memory Alpha wiki is better, I think. Proto::► 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hidden message.

Yes, I don't think hidden messages should be in articles. If you think it was important, then by all means, add it back; I just didn't think it was necessary. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, add it if you think it's important. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin standards

Hey I like your admin standards. They make me glad I am not a Monkey! Cheers. — Seadog 02:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Template:Spoken Wikipedia:

You recently protected[10] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 09:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. I thought I'd unprotected it, I've only gone and semi-protected it! Lordy me, silly Proto. Thanks VoABot, you rock. Proto::► 10:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

John O'Shea

Will Young has not been out with any footballers and thinks the rumours are hilarious!User:Gill P22:46 11 December 2006

Image:Grimlock.jpg

Hi Proto. I just noticed the fair use image image:Grimlock.jpg on your user page and rfa thankyou notice subpage, and will shortly remove them. However, the fact that you're a long time user and an admin made me unsure - I assume the copyright tag on the image, which is of a screenshot, just slipped by you when you added. However, if I'm the one who's missing something, please tell me. Picaroon9288 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My actions re. Nathannoblet

I truly didn't mean to come off as snotty; if it weren't for the fact that he'd already filed a Request for Mediation against me [11] (he declined to file an RFC, deeming the issue "too serious") for rejecting a prior article, I would have been more willing to try and work with Nathan. As it was, I asked him not to edit the Signpost because I felt that more disputes would be inevitable, given his abrasive responses (and, indeed, he filed a request for arbitration against me). Ral315 (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not arguing on your point - it's clear he's not suited to contribute to the Signpost at this time. But it was more about the way you made it. Proto::► 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

no source image

No source isn't a speedy critieria. You need to use {{subst:nsd}} to allow the images to be tagged for the required 7 days.Geni 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As as people stop missnominateing in large numbers I will.Geni 16:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

your deleting of pandagon

I strongly disagree with your decision to end that discussion. There were no arguments made to support deletion and no one responded to the arguments to keep it. How can this decision be over turned? I'm half temped to just create the article again. IrnBru001 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The AFD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pandagon was massively in favour of deletion. However, please do not recreate the article - go to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you believe the article to have been deleted unfairly. Proto::► 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The process say I'm supposed to talk to you about it first. I suggest the original few votes can not be given as much weight as some of the latter because 3 additional sources were added to help bolster the clearance of the second criteria of the standard. In fact more sources can/could be added. This being the case I suggest it does met the standard and the votes after the additions affirm that. thanks IrnBru001 20:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
File:Antigonish.gif

You deleted previous antigonish.gif. I wasn't aware of the previous image until I tried o upload this one. This one is for the Antigonish (provincial electoral district) page based on the Elections Nova Scotia map of the 2006 provincial election results - which is crown copyright. Do you know if it is allowable? I'm in the process of making more for the other districts. Thanks.
Windjade 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Contacted user via their talk page - all solved now. Proto::► 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Image: Manchurian_Ash_leaf.jpg

Manchurian Ash leaf with bark

I would like to know why this image has been deleted. No explaination has been given. The original image source states the following:

  • Herman, D.E. et al. 1996. North Dakota tree handbook. USDA NRCS ND State Soil Conservation Committee; NDSU Extension and Western Area Power Admin., Bismarck, ND. Courtesy of ND State Soil Conservation Committee. Provided by USDA NRCS ND State Office. Mandshurica. ND.

Usage Guidelines:This image is not copyrighted and may be freely used for any purpose. Please credit the artist, original publication, and the USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database. The following format is suggested and will be appreciated:

USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database / Herman, D.E. et al. 1996. North Dakota tree handbook. USDA NRCS ND State Soil Conservation Committee; NDSU Extension and Western Area Power Admin., Bismarck, ND.
I have even included the tag 'No rights reserved' this time.
Please contact me before deleting this again. I see no fault in uploading this image.Jgosteli 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Contacted user via their talk page - all solved now. Proto::► 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Image: SPURA_Span.jpg

Image SPURA_Span.jpg - you deleted it without an explanation and before I reload it, please tell me why.

Thank you, and what is (I3 G12)

See Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The image was not free for Wikipedia to use (you uploaded it indicating it was only for use on Wikipedia - see GFDL for why this is not acceptable), and it was a copyright violation. Proto::► 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And if I have the owner's permisison, does that make it better and do I need to show it to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judae1 (talk • contribs) 11:41 AM, December 14, 2006

Thank you, I appreciate your intro and direction. I understand the photo issue and will get their approval, but not necessarily with your edit chocies. I hope that is alright as I would want to have a long, posiitve and useful dialoge going forward. Juda S. Engelmayer 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse

Hi there.

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, and I noticed that you were the last person to correct vandalism and protect the ICP page. Some jerk had deleted everything on it, so I managed to revert to the earlier version. However, I was hoping that you could look into protecting the page and taking appropriate action against the user (or maybe that should be loser) that did this.

Thanks, Ed55

Deletion Tags

I apologize for that. I will try to make a better tag for the article next time. Thanks for the advice. LILVOKA 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


RE: Your deletion of Top Shelf Signature Select

I must beg to differ with your assessment as "blatant advertising." As the author of that particular article, I have no connection whatsoever with the company that owns that particular cigar brand, nor has anyone from said company influenced me to write the thing. I did go to the brand owner for certain information that could not be obtained elsewhere.

I would ask that you reply on my talk page and let me know what line of reasoning was used in classifying the article as advertising, and what you would suggest to rectify the perceived problem.
Glacierman 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have re-written the original article completely to what should satisfy the ban on advertising. Basically, save for noting that the brand is owned by Top Shelf, all other reference to TS is to "the company" and the owner is named only in the reference section, o/w he is "owner." Catalogue copy was eliminated, and some other things deletd or rewritten. This should do it. Article is now Signature Select. I invite you to review it.
Glacierman 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just Cause 2

The source of the creation of this game was actually from the company CEO Christofer Sundberg himself in an interview to the Swedish magazine Kong. [12] It wasn't a rumor. This is a very disturbing assumption of bad faith to both Sunberg and the credited reporter Jonny Knutsson, not to mention the magazine. --Oakshade 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See your talk page. Proto::► 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Response on my talk page. --Oakshade 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Had had

Hello. What was wrong with the use of the pluperfect in the Opera North article? --GuillaumeTell 14:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ladner Trunk Road

Just thought I'd point out that an old favourite deleted article of yours (immortalised at: User:Proto/road) has managed to sneak back onto Wikipedia as a stub. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a disapointing shadow of its forerunner, which I have difficulty working out if it was written by the funniest person alive or by someone with no sense of humour at all. Surely no one could type the sentence "Any of the newer lights are highlighted in bold; any lights that used to be pedestrian lights but are now four-way are in italics." with a straight face... - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 13:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock talk page comments

Hi there. I saw your comments on Husnock's user talk page, and I agree with most of what you said. It tallied with what I've been seeing of this ongoing dispute. What I'm not clear on is the bit about the CENTCOM guy that Husnock first claimed not to know (I read that bit in the ANI thread) and then gave his password to (I missed this bit). Can you point me to where the second bit was discussed, so I can check this for myself. Thanks. Carcharoth 15:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Just found it. I was only halfway through the latest ANI thread, and I've now reached the "Dear Wikipedia" bit. Carcharoth 15:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries :) Proto::► 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Renetto on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Renetto. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Oakshade 17:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration statute of limitations?

Hello, Proto: I don't want to drag you into this mess, I just have two simple questions:

(1) Is there a statute of limitations on arb com cases? Most of what I consider to be JzG's worst offenses occurred in March or April of this year. Is it too late to go to arbitration for something that happened 8 months ago?

(2) Is it an abuse of admin powers to twice threaten to lock an article in response to an edit by someone on the other side of the dispute? I know that actually executing the block is considered an abuse, but what about threatening to?

I don't want to go this route, but I may have no choice if JzG continues to refer to me as a POV pusher and a troll. Obviously, following him around and setting the record straight does nothing but get me accused of stalking. This has to stop. ATren 00:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Tyrolean Jet Services

Please open TJS again. we hope the article is no ad anymore, it is the same article as in german. Thanks for your help.Reincom 09:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mammoth Tank deletion

Much work was put into expanding this article, and the Mammoth Tank is the iconic unit of the USSR and GDI in the C&C games featured prominently in the Tiberium Wars trailers, appearing in everyone to date.

As such, this Wikipedia article provides a good all-around information about the tank for any person new to the C&C franchise, without forcing him to wade through tons of fanboyism on fansites.

Plus, it makes Wikipedia look thorough and complete in all aspects.

EDIT: I've rewritten parts of the article, included references for the descriptions as far as I could (Pretty much no OR now), added why it's notable (prominently featured) as well as tried to rewrite it ina more formal, less in-universe tone.

Now, can I ask for reevaluating that tag? It's presenting the editors with a fake alternative (I'll delete/it'll be put up for deletion) and your explanation clashes with the text of the template.

I'll be thankful for (any) response.

Mikael GRizzly 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say, and know that I'm not a fan of C&C nor am I an inclusionist, but that is something a sysop should not be saying on proposed deletion tags. It's condescending and ill-becoming of one of our respected community members. You probably take your fair share of criticism and then some for being a volunteer, as we all do, so I don't want to go off on a tangent. I just thought it was worth a neutral party commenting on it, and I apologise if it's already been discussed. I can sympathise with frustration, if that is the case perhaps a short break would help—it does for me. BigNate37(T) 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
What? Proto::► 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Proto. Thanks for voting for me and showing me confidence.--Berig 11:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Proto, I saw that you have removed the text of the article Red Fort for copyright violation. The link you provided was: [13] I checked the text against the link and could not find any violation. Maybe I am missing something, can you clarify why you think the text violates any copyright? Regards, JS 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. JS 21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the article to the pre-copyright violation version. JS 21:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said

[14] ViridaeTalk 12:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Renetto

Three points to consider about the deletion of the Renetto article.

  • Copyrighted sources are sources regardless of how they where linked. In this case, giving the time and date of the FOX interview would suffice.
  • The deletion was nominated by a troll, self admitted too. He has numerous sockpuppets and IPs, continuously vandalises football teams like newcastle united and lots of other youtube related articles. I think you should have considered this in light of all the points in the general.
  • As you may know, links that delink is the result of a page either being deleted thus expiring or being shuffled to a news archive. Therefor there where links leading to online news sources where mistakenly deleted, whereas they should simply have been mentioned without links.

I would be able to revamp the sources if you restored the article. Thanks

frummer 22:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's on deletion review. Proto::► 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, it doesnt like you're countering any of the claims there though. Ta. frummer
All I did was close the deletion the best way I saw fit, based on the arguments provided in the AFD. If the arguments were not based on Wikipedia policy when it comes to things like notability, references, etc, then I discounted the argument. What happens at DRV following this is not my concern - the original close was correct as a delete, but since then new sources have come up. Proto::► 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so how does it work with the review? It'l be closed by someone else? Whoever it is why aren't they commenting on the facts put forward there and speedy undeleting it? Thanks. frummer
Have patience - it will be dealt with once the allotted time for the discussion is over. As the decision isn't unanimous, it won't be closed early (this gives everyone who wishes to contribute a chance to give their thoughts). Proto::► 11:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)