User talk:Protonk/Archive 20
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm not really here.
|
|
Hey
Just wanted to drop by and say hello. Hope things are well with you. Guettarda (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- hey there, Guettarda. Thanks for the note! Everything is mostly going well. Haven’t been on Wikipedia in a while or working on computers in a while which is been good for me, though I’ll be back (on computers at least) soon enough. Sorry for the delay but as you can probably see from my contributions I don’t post here all that often and don’t have much cause to have Wikipedia email me when my talk page is updated. For you I’ll make an exception and check back every so often. ;) Protonk (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Nomination of List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of spacecraft from the Space Odyssey series until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
FreeBSD GA reassessment
FreeBSD, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:About/New and anonymous editors
Wikipedia talk:About/New and anonymous editors, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:About/New and anonymous editors and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:About/New and anonymous editors during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sysages (talk | contribs) 03:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Orphaned non-free image File:John Fauquier.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:John Fauquier.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
lol
lol Protonk (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have now entered my evidence, and want to thank you for sticking your neck out and being falsely impugned as a result.[1] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
"Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jontesta (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Need Assistance Please!
Hello Protonk! Back in 2009 you assisted with restoring the Threshold RPG wikipedia page when there was an organized campaign to delete it. Apparently, someone decided to mess with it again. It is gone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_(online_game)
Threshold RPG is the first F2P (free to play) game in gaming history. It is exceptionally notable. It will celebrate its 25th anniversary next month. It is the oldest commercial roleplay required game on the internet.
When it was wrongly deleted in the past, there was a lot of media coverage/outrage and that was part of what led to it being restored.
Can you assist?
You can also email me at [email protected]
I hope I did this right. I am mostly a wikipedia reader only.
Thanks!
GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
| Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
| Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive | |
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. | |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
Precious anniversary
| |
| Eight years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. | |
Stop removing correct information
Stop removing correct, relevant, ***and sourced*** information in Bedfor's law. It is not "misinformation" to state that Bedford's law also incorrectly shows massive fraud for Trump in the same data, since it happens to be true. John Moser (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I could tell it was ***sourced*** to a YouTube video. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Help with article edits
Hi, I'm Frankie. I noticed you are a participant of WP:BUSNS and I hope you will be willing to help with my pending edit request relating to updates and improvements to businessman Mohamed Amersi's article. My COI prevents me from making these changes myself. Thank you in advance; I look forward to working with you. FrankieB16 (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
DanCherek (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your criticism
Hi. On 25 August 2022 you stated in Wikipedia:Requests for permissions "it is...worrisome that you have been here for as long as you have with as many edits as you have and you talk to people like this. I would not want to work with someone who behaved like this and I'm sorry for the editors you engaged with on (e.g.) the Discord talk page. They deserved better. Please consider that your role on wikipedia should be to collaborate and to facilitate editing, not lecturing people about guidelines and policies which you demonstrably don't fully understand."
Can you explain your rationale about this? Because to me it looks like you think I can be criticized but I cannot criticize others. I do take great care in my work in Wikipedia and I can spend hours daily here. When someone just baselessly accuse me of inflating my edit counts, you have no idea how demoralizing that can be. Not only the person who did that failed to assume good faith according to Wikipedia guidance, but failed to analyze my edits properly. Edits must be based on logic, policies and guidelines with the aim of improving the project. If you expect me not to point out policies and guidelines, and if you think it is fine for others to lobe false accusations at me without I not saying anything about it, with all due respect but you seem to be the one who don't understand things. Thanks for your attention. Thinker78 (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I’ll explain more if you can tell me what I wrote about your edits on the discord talk page has to do with what an editor who isn’t me wrote about your edits to your user page. Protonk (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Thinker78: I can't speak to what TBF said about your edits to your user page, but since you insist on talking about that I'll try. It is relatively common to see editors inflate their edit count by making null edits or otherwise unproductive edits to their own page. What I think happened was TBF took your edits adding/removing your status as an attempt to do the same. That they accused you of that might be a minor failure to assume good faith, but that failure is easily rectified by saying "actually I do those for a good reason and I think it is unfair to assume I didn't". After you say that and the other editor acknowledges it or at least doesn't press the issue further, the matter is closed. There is no purpose to continuing to complain about it hither and thither as though it represents some persistent injury. Perhaps I have no idea how demoralizing it is but honestly that's something you can take up with the editor who actually made those comments.
- As for what I said about your comments on the discord talk page, I stand by them. At issue was your incorrect application of wikipedia guidelines--namely your baffling argument with an administrator over incredibly basic features of wikipedia guidance. You took what was essentially a trivial change to an article easily verified by a primary source and made it into a big discussion where you lectured them about WP:INVOLVED, WP:BURDEN, and WP:PRIMARY, among others. In each case where you raised a policy/guideline objection you were not only wrong (which is fine, happens to all of us) but unwilling to listen to someone explaining why you might be wrong.
- What I said was twofold. 1: you have been here long enough and edited enough in main space to be expected to have some understanding of what to do in these situations. That doesn't mean you need to have these guidelines memorized, but it means that you should be able to recognize when someone is trying to point out an error to you and go and actually read the pages in question when that happens. Your failure to do so indicates to me that you might not actually be listening when people tell you that you have made an error. That is a big problem when you are asking for advanced permissions. 2: Those people on that talk page deserved better. You wasted Ferret's time and inexplicably accused them of violating an administrative conduct policy when they hadn't used any administrative tools on the page. They deserved better than to have a minor issue which could have been resolved easily by people working together blown up into some weird argument with someone who wasn't interested in listening.
- Frankly, if your conclusion from that encounter and TBF's comments on their talk page is that "it looks like you think I can be criticized but I cannot criticize others" then I'm not sure what to tell you except that's totally wrong. What you are being told is that you should listen to other editors rather than lecture them on subjects were you are clearly not in a position to do so. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. First, you have mistaken assumptions about me or my edits. You stated, "you were [...] unwilling to listen to someone explaining why you might be wrong". Why do you think I was unwilling to listen? If I pride myself in something it is about listening to others and not sticking to my argument just to win a debate or for the sake of it. I took my time researching the relevant policies and guidelines, something you evidently have qualms about. It is not about "lecturing". It is about refuting edits and actions, based on Wikipedia guidance. I ask you, does your reply above consist in lecturing another editor? Why yes or why not? Thinker78 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Is this a prank? Protonk (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why would make you think this is a prank? You are not displaying good analytical skills seemingly. You lecture me but for some reason you think I should not criticize others or pointing out policies and guidelines. You are wasting my time actually. When you get serious and properly analyze things with neutrality, feel free to ping me to continue this discussion. Otherwise, have fun editing. Thinker78 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- @User:Thinker78, you came to my fucking talk page moaning about some shit ANOTHER editor said and accusing me of not understanding things and when I (only one in a line of too patient Wikipedians) tried to explain to you that your problem was you love to lecture other editors about shit you don't understand (policy, editing, logic, just to name a few) you demonstrated in the most obtuse way possible that you weren't interested in listening. Looking back at some of your earliest edits I see the same pattern. Knowing lecturing in the tone of a Markov chain model that has been trained on terrible talk page discussions and complete refusal to listen in the face of people trying their level fucking best to help you despite the stance you've taken. After a while the best case scenario for this is some elaborate performance art. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Why would make you think this is a prank? You are not displaying good analytical skills seemingly. You lecture me but for some reason you think I should not criticize others or pointing out policies and guidelines. You are wasting my time actually. When you get serious and properly analyze things with neutrality, feel free to ping me to continue this discussion. Otherwise, have fun editing. Thinker78 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Is this a prank? Protonk (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. First, you have mistaken assumptions about me or my edits. You stated, "you were [...] unwilling to listen to someone explaining why you might be wrong". Why do you think I was unwilling to listen? If I pride myself in something it is about listening to others and not sticking to my argument just to win a debate or for the sake of it. I took my time researching the relevant policies and guidelines, something you evidently have qualms about. It is not about "lecturing". It is about refuting edits and actions, based on Wikipedia guidance. I ask you, does your reply above consist in lecturing another editor? Why yes or why not? Thinker78 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
AN/I thread
I added a comment supporting you but I reverted myself because I think it was in the wrong thread. Could you start a new one and I'll support. Andre🚐 22:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. I left a comment on an existing thread but if there is a thread where I need support that is news to me. Protonk (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have included a link and been more clear: [2] I would like to support the sentiment, but it seems off-topic for that thread, and my comment didn't relate to the OP. Andre🚐 23:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Watch your back
Have you seen this? Watch your back with that one! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up! I think I’ll keep out of the way on this and see how it plays out. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
bbb23
@Bbb23: any fucking time you want to fix your shit you can. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This update enables you to add topics using an inline form and to ping others with a new shortcut.
wiipedia is the best Protonk (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
IO guess block me?!!!!>mrs
You will need to do what needs to be done to reign in this editor. Protonk (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- When I need to let off steam I usually step away from Wikipedia and go take a walk. If you want to let off steam by wrecking your own talk page, be my guest. Or call me names here, if that makes you feel better; you're not going to bait me into blocking you. But I was quite serious in my warning. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Having looked into this a little, I assume it's this comment you take exception to. That's quite understandable, but given that Bbb23 prefaced his comment by saying he couldn't understand what was going on, you might extend some good faith and bother to explain what you meant. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Brother man, I extended good faith and they decided I was beneath contempt. What do you want me to do? the issue isn't me explaining myself but them explaining their bizarre assumption (even in text they indicate they don't understand what is going on) of bad faith. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I see now that you did leave a message on Bbb23's talk page. Sorry I didn't notice before. I can't explain why that conversation played out how it did, and I can understand that you're frustrated. Going on a revert spree still isn't justified though. Please, take a deep breath, and perhaps step away for a little while. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- happy to do so. See you in a day or so when bbb23 still hasn't retracted their bizarre claims.
- I see now that you did leave a message on Bbb23's talk page. Sorry I didn't notice before. I can't explain why that conversation played out how it did, and I can understand that you're frustrated. Going on a revert spree still isn't justified though. Please, take a deep breath, and perhaps step away for a little while. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Can you find a situation where you said to yourself "well I don't know what is going on but 100% this person is advocating for white supremacy?"? If you can find that sitch I'll back off and go into hibernation. However I'm pretty skeptical. Protonk (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Brother man, I extended good faith and they decided I was beneath contempt. What do you want me to do? the issue isn't me explaining myself but them explaining their bizarre assumption (even in text they indicate they don't understand what is going on) of bad faith. Protonk (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
nothing can stop me but a blocking
A revert spree Protonk (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
cowards
@' Protonk (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Protonk (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
/
Bold Protonk (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
≥
@Italic Protonk (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
ironically, here we are at the Twinkie defense
fuck you Protonk (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
eventually one must do
we are all ok here. Arte we ? well. we will eventually be ok. Protonk (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)