Jump to content

User:Prodego/archive/65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User Gewilde

Special:Contributions/Gdewilde I believe your were the admin who unblocked this user. Would you please take a moment to review his recent edits and reconsider that decision? Thanks! Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug again, but could you just have another look. Deleting debate on the talk pages should be grounds for re-blocking, shouldn't it? Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Guyonthesubway, it would be appropriate if you would address me personally if you have something to say. If there is something wrong then you should add links, don't complaint about a person in general. Your generalised complaints can not be addressed so I find your behaviour offencive.
  • I see you are quite the bad faith editor here[[1]]
Deal with content and limit your complaints about other editors as much as possible. When you do have something substatial to complain about please use my user talk page and add the links to your complaint, like so[2][3][4] [5][6] ghee, I'm sorry but the rest doesn't look like a constructive contributor at all? [[7]] If you go on like this I will make jokes about you and you will be forced to laugh about yourself. Now if you excuse me I have articles to vandalise.
Please stop bothering Prodego with nonsense okay?
Thanks, Gdewilde (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's a diff: [8]—Gdewilde deleting relevant text from a talk page, something he's been repeated warned about. Yilloslime (t) 01:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Start of deletions from talk pages [9]. Please note that only topics of interest to gdwilde remain on the talk page. talk:Stanley_Meyer's_water_fuel_cell Guyonthesubway (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Hey, I see you are working in teams again?

  • Here you remove alternative energy from the free energy page: [10][11]
  • Renewabble energy was on the page in Jan. 2004 [12] you are not familiar with the term.
  • O noes, more people useing the term "Free energy", it cant be that I'm wrong it must absolutly be deleted:[13]
  • Lets anounce Consensus!! [14]
  • Lets argue there is no discussion on the talk page: [15] Meanwhile back on the talk page, Prebys and Arthur Rubin actually agree there can be an article about free energy where the different uses of the term shall be disclosed the way the enciclopedia should.(think 2012) Their motivation is of course to delete free energy suppression true, but that is not important to the point you try to make that the whole term doesnt exist.
  • This one was funny:[16] Why is it on the page now?:Water-fuelled_car#Thushara_Priyamal_Edirisinghe Why are you not RM'ing it again? If it's wrong for such obvious reasons?

User_talk:Yilloslime#Aquygen: Still no Aquagen section for the water powered autor? Why is that? I did add the sources to the page, you chose not to see them or something?[[17]]

Aquygen by Dennis Klein

hydrogen Technology Applications Inc.[[18]]
  • Dennis Klein was granted US Patent No: 6866756 for a Hydrogen generator for uses in a vehicle fuel system. ABSTRACT: The present invention discloses an electrolyzer for electrolyzing water into a gaseous mixture comprising hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. The electrolyzer is adapted to deliver this gaseous mixture to the fuel system of an internal combustion engine. The electrolyzer of the present invention comprises one or more supplemental electrode at least partially immersed in an aqueous electrolyte solution interposed between two principle electrodes. The gaseous mixture is generated by applying an electrical potential between the two principal electrodes. The electrolyzer further includes a gas reservoir region for collecting the generated gaseous mixture. The present invention further discloses a method of utilizing the electrolyzer in conjunction with the fuel system of an internal combustion engine to improve the efficiency of said internal combustion engine..
The series cell design by Yull Brown.

There are your sources. Not good enough I assume? I'm the one who spend time to find them - it was not you, it was me who did the work. You keep that fact in mind next time you come complaint about my sincire contributions.

This[[19]] is very revealing in combination with removing the definition from the free energy page.

Lets create some context here, 1) You couldn't find the Aquajagen, references on the talk page and 2) you complaint when I archive some discussions in response to other talk page users? And it's not a joke? Are you sure? You didn't read anything again? yes? haha?

Anyway, if you feel you lost somethinghere then please put it back on the talk page. It's a cut and past transaction, you don't have to write or source anything. It cant be any more work then it is to archive the topic. And you know I wont archive it again. The goal of archiving is to clean up the page, I don't see what use a discussion about archiving is after the deed? How is it not useless page filling? I follow the instructions written there and after that the instructions really didn't have any further use.

Again if it's wrong then you correct it, I'm not aware of any mistakes, I didn't make any. I think you are wasting peoples time here. I think this because you didn't have anything substantial to complaint about but talk in the context of banning me. Want to Ban me and accuse me of sock pupeting, send admins after me who cant find anything?

I archive a talk page ohhhh *shrug*

Yeah, it's entirely obvious what your point is.

If there is free energy suppression then that calls for free energy suppressors. lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gdewilde/Free_energy

Gdewilde (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to this since all the diffs are of my edits, and since this is more evidence that Gdewilde still hasn't learned to play nice with others. I hope Prodego will seriously reconsider his unblocking of Gdewilde.
Here goes:
  • His very first sentence "Hey, I see you are working in teams again?" shows a lack of assumption of good faith, and could be interpreted as an attack.
  • The first 5 diffs are of me removing the link to alternative energy from the free energy DAB page. I and others have removed this link repeatedly since, as I explained the first time I removed it[20], the term is not commonly used to refer to alternative energy and the page alternative energy does not list "free energy" as a synonym. User:DMacks explained all this most clearly on the talkpage [21] on 01:30, July 21, 2008, but that didn't stopped Gdewilde from reinserting the link an hour latter[22]. For the record, since June User:Reddi and User:Jemmy Button have also (re)inserted the link, and myself, User:Arthur Rubin, user:DMacks, and user:Oli Filth have removed it.
  • Gdewilde's second bullet "you are not familiar with the term"—a clear contravention of WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (For the record, I'm a chemist and have worked in the American alternative energy industry (both biofuels and solar) so if the term were commonly used, I would know.)
  • Forth bullet: "Lets anounce Consensus!! [23]". At that point, (18:44, July 19, 2008), myself, Arthur Rubin, and Oli Filth had all removed the link to alternative energy, and Gdewilde/go-here.nl and Reddi had readded it. Perhaps "consensus" was too strong a term to use, but clearly the majority view was that the term does not belong. Furthermore, with exception of this and this revert by Reddi, when reinserting the link, no one ever provided a rationale for it's inclusion, meanwhile in removing the link, Arthur, Oli, and I always provided a reason.
  • Next bullet: "Lets argue there is no discussion on the talk page: [24] Meanwhile back on the talk page, Prebys and Arthur Rubin actually agree there can be an article about free energy where the different uses of the term shall be disclosed the way the enciclopedia should.(think 2012) Their motivation is of course to delete free energy suppression true, but that is not important to the point you try to make that the whole term doesnt exist." As of 23:01, July 20, 2008 when I made that argument, the talk page had no mention of the term "alternative enegy". Prebys and Arthur didn't add the comments Gdewilde references until August 6. Also in this bullet, Gdewilde speculates about the motives of other editors, a breach of WP:AGF.
  • Next bullet: "This one was funny:[25] Why is it on the page now?:Water-fuelled_car#Thushara_Priyamal_Edirisinghe Why are you not RM'ing it again? If it's wrong for such obvious reasons?" Gdewilde is refering to my comment in my edit summary, "rm non-notable Sri Lankan claim. we're not going to profile every single alleged water fuelled vehicle, only the important ones, and currently there is only 1 media story on this one." I stand by that edit and the edit summary. At the time (22:58, July 20, 2008), there was only a single media story on the car and thus is was not notable, and even if it were worth of mention, it most certainly did not deserve to be the first car described in the technology section, with more text devoted to it than the Genepix car. So my removal was justified per WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT. Now that there are more media stories about it, there is a stronger argument for notability and I don't see a problem including the small section on it that's currently in there.
  • As for this: User_talk:Yilloslime#Aquygen: I'm not going to rehash that. Interested parties can read the thread and decide for themselves. I don't really understand what Gdewilde is trying to say here, with the questions (Still no Aquagen section for the water powered autor? Why is that? I did add the sources to the page, you chose not to see them or something?…There are your sources. Not good enough I assume?) and the bullet points and diagram. In my original response to Guyonthesubway[26] I expressed my openness to including material on Aquyen if it was reliably sourced and written in readable prose, and I even invited him to try to introduce such material to the article. So far neither Guy nor anyone else has done so, so if Gdewilde is insinuating that I'm conducting some kind of campaign to keep info on Aquyen off the page, well then that's just ridiculous.
I'll stop there, as I think anyone who bothers to read this far will see the pattern. But if Prodego would like "my side" of any of then rest of what Gdewilde brings up, I'll be happy to oblige. Yilloslime (t) 01:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Slightly modified before anyone else commented at 05:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


[Unrelated to my response above] Here's another diff showing Gdewilde's unacceptable behavior, in this case misrepresenting the words of other editors: [27]. He claims he's been told that the PM of Sri Lanka is not a credible source, but the diff he provides (again, one of mine) [28] actually says nothing of the sort. Yilloslime (t) 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
And here he is misusing the {{citation needed}} tag: [29]. Yilloslime (t) 05:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

but the diff he provides actually says nothing of the sort.:

rm non-notable Sri Lankan claim. we're not going to profile every single alleged water fuelled vehicle, only the important ones, and currently there is only 1 media story on this one.[[30]]

Prime ministers need only 1 press release in their national newspaper. I did add other sources as you can see. Other sources you wasn't able to notice either, your lack of notion is not a very good excuse to attack my contribution.

I first add this to the page on 20 July and I had to work until 6 August before it managed to find it's way into the article[[31]]. I wrote this separate article about it then it rappidly disappeared into the page. I'm sure OMCV would have rater seen it disappear but the Prime minister is a good source. Not bla bla bla but he is.

I had to work my way around you. At no stage did you do anything to progress the article, just like you had removed the section about Dennis Klein. I have supplied you with the sources now. Consider it a test of character. We are now going to see how long it takes you to restore that section you RM for nonsense reasons. It cant be more then 10 min work as I did everything for you already.

Will it take you a whole month you think? Will people continue to whine about it after that? It took me from 20 July until [6 Augustus to add a perfectly valid contribution to the page because people like you tried to prevent it. And now you are angry or something? You are looking for anything to complaint about?

But I didn't do anything wrong. So that means you are intentionally wasting my time and that of Prodego here. It didn't take me a month to add that content because I'm retarded and it takes me a month to write 1 paragraphs of text, my above comments give you that impression right? So that can only mean that all kinds of nonsense obstacles got erected and you just gave the ultimate example of assuming bad faith trying to prove I'm an evil doer.

Relax, behave yourself. I don't want no apology, I want you to stop bothering me over nothing. MMMKAY?? Gdewilde (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"And here he is misusing the [citation needed] tag" Dude, if you wasn't bothering me the way you do then I would be searching sources right now. The oxyhydrogen page looks that way because of you and Steve. If there is a conflict about an unsourced paragraph then it should be tagged. I should have used a template now that you mention it. I didn't know it was going to take me ages to repair it. I didn't know you was going to continue to bother me with nonsense.Gdewilde (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay I found it! "{{unreferencedsection}}" I'm such a newbie at this templating people I would much rather fix it but now we can just leave the text unharmed for it's author to repair it. This might not be such a bad idea for you to use also. Then you don't have to delete whole contributions like a madman. Yeah, this template is definatly for people like you. hahaha
Thanks for pointing that out of here now dude.
ROFL Gdewilde (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"I'm sure OMCV would have rater seen it disappear but the Prime minister is a good source." Forgive me if this is out of line, but you don't seem to understand what the term "source" means. A source, is a newspaper, magazine, or journal article, a book, an authoritative website, etc. Sources are used as references, to back up what's written in an article's text. While it is a fact that Sri Lankan PM has pledged to support Edirisinghe, that doesn't make him a source. That's simply an endorsement, and it may or may not be relevant. An official statement from him or his office could be a source, and in some cases it might be appropriate to reference such a source, but that's not what we have here. Please try to use words correctly as doing so will drastically reduce confusion and promote happy, conflict-free editing. I realize this might sound condescending, but that's not my intention. I'm just trying to point out what appears to be the source of a miscommunication so that we can clear it up and move on. Yilloslime (t) 06:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It appears that you unblocked user Gdewilde. He has returned and is operating just as he was before.
  1. Edit waring as much as is legally allowed.
  2. Filling text of articles and their headers with weasel words.
  3. Filling talk pages with random junk to distract from his other actions.
  4. On talk pages it is often difficult to understand hist text due to the use phonetic substitutes (MMMKAY??).
  5. Many talk page contributions involving several lines of quotes followed by a single sentence fragment, even when a quote isn't involved there is often undo brevity and perhaps a link.
  6. He has inverted the meaning of established text.
  7. As always he is trying to promote fringe theories giving them undue weight. I can only hope he shifts his attention to the Flat Earth debate.
I'm sure there are more complaints that could be brought forward but that is what I've noticed so far. His positions on the subjects he edits are very different than main stream science and well documented here and on his web site. In fact in the first link he claims to be creating technology to use water as a fuel.--OMCV (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to all

Alright, I see that during the two days I was gone, a bit of an issue came up, and wanted to start by letting everyone involved know that should anyone ever have a problem with my actions, that I am perfectly secure in allowing any other admin (or editor) to undo them, if it is determined the action is wrong, though in such cases I would appreciate a note letting me know. Now, commenting on this particular situation:

  • Guyonthesubway: Yes, it is usually best to bring up problems with the user first, rather than asking others, though in this case the complaints were obviously brought up by others.
  • Gdewilde: No one is bothering me on my talk page, it is ok to leave the content here, anyone is free to criticize or request help.
  • Gdewilde: Please stop archiving, removing, editing, or editing in any way other editor's comments. It really isn't appropriate.
  • To everyone: This is obviously a content dispute, which needs to be discussed, on the talk page. Yes there has been discussion in the past, but I think it would be best to have a final review of the consensus positions for what is on the page.
  • Gdewilde: If you continue to ignore other editors' input, you will be blocked, it is disruptive, and works against the goals of a consensus based project.
  • I strongly believe Gdewilde doesn't intend to ignore and contravene consensus, but is doing so without realizing. Which doesn't make it much better, but is a point of note.
  • I ask everyone to please disregard the past problems, and try to work this out. This is for a few reasons, 1: A new, better moderated slate might actually achieve consensus, 2: the issue of the actual content might be being overwhelmed by personal disuptes, 3: it lets me see who is actually being disruptive better. I especially ask that this be considered.

Prodego talk 19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into things, Prodego. While I agree that there is definitely a content dispute going on here, I strongly disagree that that's all that's going on here. As documented above, Gdewilde has edit-warred, been uncivil, failed to assume good faith, and engaged in some of the very same behaviors that got him indef blocked previously, like deleting relevant text from talk pages like he just did right here[32]. The fact that there is content dispute underlying these behaviors shouldn't excuse them, nor should unfamiliarity with policy be an excuse. In fact, Gdewilde/Go-here.nl has been around long enough and had policy explained to him enough times, that if he is still truly ignorant of our policies then it must willful ignorance. I'll drop this now in hopes that your warning has the desired effect. Yilloslime (t) 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
By all means lets deal with recent events. Prodego, it would be great if you could take a look a Gdewilde's recent contribution to talk pages. I would be interested in your opinion. How much of it is content based/motivated? As far as leaving complaints with Gdewilde a number of people including have sent him requests at his talk page but he prefers to blank them as soon as they arrive. Again check his talk page history. As long as its blank it doesn't "appear" he is ignoring anything. Its clear that Gdewilde has an agenda and will give lip service to anything necessary to advances his financial investments (even if it only involves google ads). There is a clear consensus regarding content on a variety of the disputed pages and as result Gdewilde has an uphill battle since he is representing what can be called a fringe position at best. We are all willing to debate him point by point but thats hasn't happened. Everyone else commonly involved uses the talk page effectively Yilloslime, Arthur Rubin, DMacks, Oli Filth, SteveBaker, CyclePat, and even Nseidm1. I ask you to explain why you "strongly believe" that Gdewilde isn't ignoring consensus? Dumb and ignorant is not a way I would describe Gdewilde.--OMCV (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The situation has become far too convoluted for me to do, or conclude anything. Which is why I think 'starting over' is a good idea. Prodego talk 03:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough but keep an eye out for more convolution.--OMCV (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
gdewilde is a contentious user with several blocks, a history of disruptive edits, endless complaints from other editors under both his current login, and his older login. You unblocked him, and he went back to the same pattern, and the situation is "too convoluted"? and we should ask him to "please s"? I suspect you should own up to the decision to unblock him, and examine what you an editor that you've essentially sponsored is up to. I'm a resonably new editor, so forgive me if I think that talking it out with an editor with a history of nothing but heavily contested edits based entirely on sketchy sources isnt the best solution. I think he's playing you like a fiddle.Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention deleting this conversation... [[33]] Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like some comments on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guyonthesubway#Challenge_users_to_assume_bad_faith

THANKS Gdewilde (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Who renamed the preceding section "Lets attacks user Gdewilde"? That doesn't seem to be appropriate nor is it the title Guyonthesubway originally gave it. Blanking this page is an example of the edits Gdewilde often makes on talk pages. Changing titles is something Gdewilde commonly does in articles and talk pages. Just keeping you up to speed.--OMCV (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dispute with OMCV

Note that I have sectioned this off myself. I would like this disupute to receive all the attention it deserves Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC) I would like some comments on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OMCV&oldid=231245350#personal_attacks

THANKS

Gdewilde (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

Sorry man! I didn't think TW sent out warnings for CSD G3 tags. Oops! - Icewedge (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Its ok, and coincidentally, I've deleted them all. Prodego talk 04:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry to boot.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gdewilde Thanks for you attention. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

BCC Research

My bad. The article has been placed in this location for further work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stuartfost/BCC_Research2 I think you misunderstood my intent. Stuartfost (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV guideline/essay thing

Just a note, I hope you don't mind, but I added a Oppose per Friday to your comment, as it wasn't immediately noticable which way you stood. (I did the same for Friday's). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 Works for me :) Prodego talk 18:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

I've undone your rollback. [34] Please note that despite the "all caps" edit summary this was a perfectly acceptable comment (in the context) from a long standing editor. Pedro :  Chat 

I'd agree totally, and using ALL CAPS on an old thread is just silly - but that's Kurt for you :) It was just a courtesy note to let you know. No biggie. Pedro :  Chat  19:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Can you just semi-protect it for a few hours? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I saw your name at WP:ADCO, and, would you be willing to Admin Coach me? Thanks for the consideration.--LAAFan 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm looking for. Consider me your new admin coachee.--LAAFan 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to your comments, thanks for setting me straight on that. I will start to make sure it doesn't meet notability. I have a question, though. If there is an article where I'm on the fence about a speedy, should I AFD, or just leave the article as it is?--LAAFan 16:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ACC Flag

Hey, I just wanted to drop in to let you know that current practice is that users aren't given the ACC flag just because they signed up on the ACC tool - we typically wait until they hit the account creation throttle at least once. anyhow, it's not a huge problem, but keep that in mind. cheers, –xeno (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

August 18, 2008 Prodego (Talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Little Mountain 5 from Rollbackers to Rollbackers and Account creators ‎ (joined acc tool) The user has never created an account for WP:ACC. The flag can be left with the user for now, but it will be eventually removed if they don't become active in the ACC process. –xeno (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
As for the "it can do no harm" - I'll email you on this, it's kinda beansy. as for policy, no but there are guidelines, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Accountcreator granting and revoking and also there's some discussion threads at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archives/2008/July. –xeno (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 31 28 July 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimania 2008 wrap-up WikiWorld: "Terry Gross" 
News and notes: Unblocked in China Dispatches: Find reliable sources online 
WikiProject Report: Military history Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 32 9 August 2008 About the Signpost
Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy" 
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 33 11 August 2008 About the Signpost
Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members 
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos" 
News and notes: Wikipedian dies Dispatches: Reviewing free images 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 34 18 August 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: Help wanted 
WikiWorld: "Cashew" Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The cancelation of VP

Hello, you seem to be the editor who canceled the use of VP. Could you please give me an explanation as to why that action was taken? I found the tool to be excellent. To cancel it out of the blue, without any notice or discussion seems atypical for Wikipedia. Please shed some light. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanx for reverting vandalism on my account, I'm currently the victim of a /b/ hate spree and I'm lossing track of all the people I need to thank. — Realist2 19:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Possible RfA

Thank you again for your kind message. I will give your suggestion some more serious thought this time. I am currently only working part-time, and therefore I might be able to give a little more time to administrative work. I will confess, however, that I do have a couple of weaknesses which may compromise the success of my candidacy:

1) I'm not really good with the MediaWiki coding language (e.g. making tables, templates, etc.). I know the basics (such as elementary table formatting), but I don't have the level of skill that many of the other admins have.
2) I really haven't participated in the dispute resolution process that much here. This is due in large part to the fact that I am mildly allergic to Internet drama.

Apart from those two things, I think I could probably do most of the other things admins do. Let me know what you think. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Question for you, Prodego: while we're on the subject of administrative stuff, have you read either of the essays I have written? This is the first one I wrote, and this is the second. Let me know what you think of them. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for your comments. I will confess that the first essay was written while I was in an especially angry and cynical mood, so it should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I should probably put a disclaimer on there. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm back

Not sure how much editing I will do, but I'm back... --BenBurch (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

that 'jerk' is a Sock

86.153.130.184 is a pro pakistani vandalizing articles. another user claimed he is a sock of a user called Nangparbat. please see [35] and [36]. help please. he is inserting pakistani argument everywhere n remove indian ones. he write administered near kashmir (india) n removes for pakistan. he was rangeblocked sometime ago but has now returned!! just have a look at his edits and see the biasness. moreover in the 'indus valley civilization' article, he starts a sentence with 'And' and says to me 'it can hindu faggot'. See the edit summary and it clearly proves it is the same person. And he keeps thretening that he'll continue until we accept what he wants. Is all this allowed in WP? if it is i'm out of here!!!! Since you are an admin PLEASE HELP a range block again. i am not whining.. i saying truth!! See: [37]. thanks 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)~

the above user is a ip address like mine and has been here before with his false claims he edits with a heavy pro indian view i just revert these and this is what irks him so much and i didnt threaten can you proove that ip fool? 86.163.155.56 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC) if this ip editor is allowed to edit with his extremely pro indian stance than i should aswell favouritism must end. care to listen to both sides of the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.123.126 (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have an explanation, yes. Prodego talk 16:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

im not sure if you heard about Kashmir Cloud and Cityvalu there are both pro indian editors who without consensus redirect azad kashmir and northern area articles to there recently produced anti pakistani article called POK this article was created when kashmicloud was unable to push his biased edits through into the northern areas page he insisted to rename Occupied Kashmir when i did the same to jammu and kashmir he had a sissy fit of epic proportions so i believe unless these two are stopped i will not stop 86.162.67.217 (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Since you lifted this users block, perhaps you should have a look at the message on his talk page which states he is bringing charges against another wikipedian. Maybe the block should be re-enforced? Verbal chat 18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. Verbal chat 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like a moron now...

but I can't remember what that alert channel's name is. Can you point me in the right direction? J.delanoygabsadds 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Risker

May as well protect it. That'll be happening every couple of minutes until you do... HalfShadow 03:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. HalfShadow 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Be careful

FYI in attempting to revert grawp you deleted the Polytheism article, which wasn't caught for 11 hours. Prodego talk 15:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How the hell did I do that? I simply attempted to move the article back. :(. Did I end up moving the redirect over the article or something stupid like that? My guess is that cluebot or someone beat me to the move and I ended up deleting the article and moving what was now a redirect over the page. :( Bah! —— nixeagle 22:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:86.162.70.28

This IP has posted an unblock request; it comes from a rangeblock you implemented. Any comments? Mangojuicetalk 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Guido

Sorry to bother you again. Guido den Broeder has requested unblocking and says that the latest legal action is concluded. I've started a thread at WP:ANI#User:Guido den Broder -- you might want to comment there. Mangojuicetalk 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 35 25 August 2008 About the Signpost
WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell" News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Interview with Mav 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 36 8 September 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent" 
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Featured topics Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/65&oldid=1252047092"