Jump to content

User:Prodego/archive/71

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Roux

I agree. I was sitting and thinking about it, but I agree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish you had made CBs block longer (perhaps 2 days), so it would be more flexible with Roux. 24 hours was quite lenient (and as a result, the 12 hour block was as well) But I think it was important it be less... Prodego talk 02:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I (obviously ;) ) disagree. I believe the block was purely punitive; it was preventing nothing due to the issue being over. Further commentary at my talkpage. //roux   15:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for explaining

Thanks for explaining. I don't understand why Wikipedia would do such a thing, but I guess I can live with WP being abused for one day. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-8

Is it that bad? tleSif (atlk) 08:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Prodego talk 12:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter Test

Hey I have seen that you have posted an abuse filter test on Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries. What exactly does it do? I've never seen it? And also, there is a lot of vandalism on that page lately. Is there any way we can stop such vandalism and bad conduct? --Zeppher (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse Filter. Prodego talk 22:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter question

You've disabled a bunch of filters with the reason "performance", could you explain what you mean by that? Or rather, could you say why this filter (incidentally created by me) creates performance problems, for example? I don't know too much about the technical aspects of the filter, but I would've thought that a filter that only checks a single article can't possibly cause any performance problems. Guess I've been wrong, but now I'm curious why. :) --Conti|✉ 23:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, alright, so the problem was the number of the filters, and not any filter in particular. The problem of uneditable pages existed before the filter (Try editing List of Wii games some day), but if it makes things worse, that's certainly not good. If we have to restrict the number of active filters, there probably should be a discussion on what kind of filters we want to have somewhere. --Conti|✉ 10:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Filter 133

I see. However, you could have explained it in the notes section when you first disabled it. —Admiral Norton (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I had successfully edited the page in question after enabling that filter and I didn't get any performance problems (note that I didn't have to log out since this particular filter doesn't discern user groups). —Admiral Norton (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, it didn't occur to me before. I'll make sure I log out if I intend to test a filter. —Admiral Norton (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the US workforce coming back home. Unfortunately, given my timezone, I'll probably be fast asleep by then. —Admiral Norton (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re

Well the main reason i reverted it was because i saw that there edit on your page has been reverted before ill remove the warning form his page though.--Cheers Kyle1278 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and a good reason too. Prodego talk 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Neurolysis RfA

Hey Prodego, I just left a response to your oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neurolysis; I feel obligated to comment since I was somewhat involved in the oversight issues you mentioned, and I think this was just a miscommunication. (If you disagree, you are of course welcome to keep your oppose as it, I just wanted to clarify things just in case.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your ER

Hello, your ER has been open past the 30 day time limit, and it needs to be archived to eliminated the backlog, if you wish to keep it open any longer, don't hesitate to ask. If not, I will need to archive it.--Truco 02:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Prodego talk 02:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

204.38.173.234

You banned this IP for a year in early 2008; he/she is now back and made vandal edits to Toxic Shock and Ebola (both April 15). Looking at the talk page full of automated warnings and last warnings and noting that one of the vandal edits did not attract ClueBot's attention, I think this person may merit prompt re-banning; they seem to be back to old tricks. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked. Prodego talk 23:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice

An article you made some edits to a few years ago, Prostitution in China, is at FAR; see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Prostitution in China/archive1. (Sorry about the notice, but you're the only major contributor to that article who is not retired.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjanag has nominated Prostitution in China for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Admin Coaching

I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 14:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TOR block exempt on plwiki

Done.  « Saper // @talk »  23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from your userpage (left by an IP)

The Rosetta Barnstar
You have done a great job translating pages. I award you this barnstar.
Wait I what? I never translated anything ever! :/. Prodego talk 02:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Prodego's Day!

User:Prodego has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Prodego's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Prodego!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Aww. :) Prodego talk 02:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper

Hello, my friend. Can you point me to the discussion and decisiion about semi-protection at Newspaper? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I just restored the protection that was lost when Dominic deleted some revisions from the page. It also looked like in the few hours it was unprotected, all 6 of the edits were vandalism or vandalism reverts, so protection seems reasonable to me. There was no discussion, so far as I am aware. Prodego talk 03:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find any edits by Dominic on that page, and those few vandalism edits which I could find were childish but quickly corrected. Seems to me that an article on newspapers, which are the eyes and ears of a free society, should not be semi-protected except for the gravest of causes. User 65.184.164.26 also diddled with Hermit Crab. Should that be semi-protected also? Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dominic (and Ohnoitsjamie) deleted the page to remove some edits see this link: [1]. The original protection was by Xeno. My apologies. Prodego talk 01:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Will you lift the semi-protection? There seems to be no consensus to continue it? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to ask Xeno that, since it is not my protection to remove. Prodego talk 18:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I don't understand why your name shows up in the box: 19:06, 6 May 2009 Prodego (talk | contribs) protected Newspaper [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)) ‎ (Excessive vandalism) (hist) In puzzlement, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored Xeno's protection after the protection was accidentally removed while deleting something from the page. Prodego talk 22:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/71&oldid=1145851137"