Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 26 July 2008

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2

A job well done

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

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

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

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

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

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

Designing Economic Mechanisms

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

Good night

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

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

Fauquier

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

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

Bovet GAN

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

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

My RfA

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

Damn, damn, damn...

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

Update regarding hound surgery earlier this morning

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

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

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

New section (out of the blue!)

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

Millennium Items‎ pictures response

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

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

Encyclopedia Dramatica

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

BBCode non-admin closure

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

AN/I Thread

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

Re:Question about reverting page moves

Rollback granted

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

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

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

Ace Combat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States Navy Recruit Training Command

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

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

WP:AIV

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

transwiki to Wiktionary

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

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

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

The Origins of Value

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

Nuking friges

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

User talk:Seascic/talkresponse

User talk:Seascic/talkresponse

Terra Nova (blog)‎

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

Talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talkpage

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

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

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

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

Previously removed comments. Contents struck upon request

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

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

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

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

I archived my talk page after, so I will WP:AGF that you did not see that template warning which User talk:Realkyhick gave me. For administrators to be taken seriously on wikipedia, they must be fair in the use of their administrative powers, thats the ideal anyway. The reality, I have found again and again is completely the opposite.

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

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