Jump to content

User:Prodego/archive/73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help with wikibreak

I need to stop editing this site for a bit and try and focus on my demo reel, so I would like to request a block for a week, with a reference in the block log pointing to this request. I ask for the point, as I do not wish people to read it and think otherwise.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with ACC

New ACC user. When I click the "create" link to create an account, I'm taken to a page for account creation... but the "by email" button is missing. Help? Vicenarian (T · C)

Oh, figured it out. Never mind. :) Vicenarian (T · C) 16:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Prodego, Srinivas G Phani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Srinivas G Phani 04:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Some shameless thankspam!

User:Colds7ream/RfA

Serbia map

I don't see a consensus on the talkpage to change the map, besides a few protests by some pro-Albanian users. The map shows what the UN and the vast majority of nations recognize Serbia's borders as. --Tocino 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a closer look. In Talk:Serbia#Locator_map an Albanian user demands that the map be changed, and most of the responses are negative. Talk:Serbia#Kosovo is similar. An Albanian user demands that the map be changed, but three support his proposal, while two disagree. Not exactly a consensus. In Talk:Serbia#The new map is unacceptable I see one user who supports your map. As you've said, two other users besides me have reverted your changes. I just don't see the consensus here. And it's not WP rules that you must also post on the talkpage in order for your edits to carry any weight. --Tocino 19:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience and levelheadedness in dealing with this issue. I can see why you have so many good comments on your talk page. I don't have much else to say on the Serbia talk page. We would probably just go in circles anyway. I don't think there will ever be a consensus. --Tocino 05:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Speaking of which, thanks for the notice. I observed some discussion on the talk page regarding the map, and intended on adding a notice but had to run out and then forgot. Ah well. Anyhow, the map I added is similar to those used in many other European and other country articles, something which I was hoping to do with other European articles with inconsistent maps; also, I opted to colour Kosovo a different shade of green given its current political status. I don't necessarily want to get embroiled in any controversy, though. There you go. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC) [1] Resolution 1244 Reaffirm the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (i.e., Kosovo remains part of the FRY, to which Serbia is now the recognized successor state) and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act and annex 2 of UNSCR 1244 (an annex that envisions, inter alia, a Kosovo status process);--Boksi (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to weigh in and discuss, but this seems to have complicated matters somewhat. You will note that an EU-focused map was added just prior, and I simply restored a more appropriate one (the one recently created) with sound rationale, as discussed. As it stands now, editors can potentially leave it at that and, thus, the old map you restored -- which, though long-standing, is objectionable -- would be retained. I've commented thoroughly about the need to change the map (though initially didn't really care), and don't think I can weigh in any more: the map 'issue' is sucking up far too much time. A poll or mediation may be warranted, but I am skeptical about the latter process and achieving an equitable outcome when intractable editors are involved. Thoughts? Bosonic dressing (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Time is one thing that Wikipedia has an infinite amount of, all articles are works in progress. Discussion will ultimately lead to the best outcome. Prodego talk 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
BTAIM, there's a distinct difference between progress and obstinacy; discussion has been circuitous (which you've pointed out), and IMO no amount of discussion can help persuade nationalists to relent until at least the ICJ rules in a year or two. Wikipedia may have an abundance of time and patience, but editors may not. :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Good job!? :) I do wonder, though, whether the caption for Serbia should just read 'green' to be purposefully vague on the point of Kosovo's status? Anyhow ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Well, I'd decided not to carry on reverting and then the warning appeared! In my defence I can only say that I explained my reasons for reverting and that I was doing it to safeguard Wiki guidelines and prevent omission of information .Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was leaving a message on PRODUCER's talk just as you were writing the warning, I believe. Is it just me or does the whole of the ex-Yugoslavia articles produce a massive amount of grief for very little result? Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)</


Yugoslav War

here "cinema" reverted my edit without being part of the discussion and without stating why he reverted. The only explanation I can think of is that he wants to undo everything I write for the sake of it, or that he was informed by another user to do it.

I did not revert his edit this time, I seek your comment on the matter first. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)).

Filter 81

Please re-enable filter 81: I use it constantly. I check its output every few hours, and monitor all changes that it flags.—Kww(talk) 17:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently some recent change funked up all kinds of stuff. The filter may have been disabled temporarily while that issue is worked out. –xenotalk 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The log shows Prodego intentionally disabling it because he believed it to be unused.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Reenabled, but note that as of a few days ago 6% of all edits were hitting the condition limit, the number of checks that after is hit, abuse filter checks stop. 81's checks look pretty intensive to me (and it dropped to under 2% as of my writing this). Some filters need to be disabled, and this one doesn't do anything but tag. Prodego talk 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If someone could figure out a version with fewer false positives we could give it some teeth. Alternatively, a good bot to do it post-mortem would be great, but no one ever responds to my requests at WP:BOTREQ. If this filter is working the way it is intended, it should exit as soon as it is determined that the article doesn't contain the words "single" or "album", and the long checks should only apply to articles that stand a fairly good probability of firing. Is there a way to monitor the filter for how many checks it actually applies?—Kww(talk) 22:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Julia Knowles

You stupid hoe thank for deleting my afticle go suck a donk and kill yourself. Thanks a bunch-- Shegotadonk

Sources

Hi, I just read your question, I wasn't able to answer earlier. Yes I have very good sources for my edits, and I think saying 140,000 Croatians were killed in RSK, BiH, and RS is impossible. Here are the sources and numbers:

22,000+ Croats killed

  • War in Croatia
    • Croatian sources[2] - 14,000 Croats killed
    • International sources[3] - 20,000 Croats killed
  • Bosnian War
    • At the page itself in the casualties you have from 7,000-9,000 Croats killed
  • Other wars
    • In other Yugoslav wars there were only Croatian volunteers and in Slovenian War there were some Croats participating on JNA side, the number of Croats dead in other wars were probably few dozen since I found no source so they don't have to be taken in casualties note...

As you see we come to a number of 14,000 - 20,000 killed in Croatia and Republic of Serbian Krajina, while there were around 7,000-9,000 Croats killed during Bosnian War. That would be from 21,000-30,000 Croats killed during Yugoslav wars so I think the 22,000+ is reasonable. I didn't put sources because in that case they are divided in two parts and box doesn't look very informative.

Tell me what do you think about current casualties and then I will post sources for other casualties note, probably tomorrow... --Forsena (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I really wouldn't do such a thing since I really got no time to just "change numbers" to make them pointless. Anyway I'm looking for a way to post sources that wouldn't destroy that infobox, tomorrow I will finish editing it and posting sources, ok? See ya --Forsena (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent change to filter 80

Seems a bit overkeen, it pounced on me the first link I posted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_filter/False_positives#82.6.108.62, you might need to take a second look at it. Thanks, 82.6.108.62 (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:82.6.108.62. Prodego talk 20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: ACC Tool

I am confirming that I requested access to the account creation tool. Jet123 (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prodego. You have new messages at LouriePieterse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LouriePieterse (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Endeavor (nonprofit)

Hi, why does the ENDEAVOR (non-profit) page keep getting deleted? We can't figure out what we're doing wrong. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 900broadway (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Film}}

Can you explain this edit please? PC78 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is a genuine problem or a valid concern; many templates have colours hardcoded in such a fashion. Can you point me in the direction of some further reading on the issue? PC78 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Well... meh. You'll have to do likewise for the "Past reviews and collaboration" section of the banner. In both cases, could you please add a colon to the end of the header text (i.e. "Improving this article:"), save me making a seperate edit request? PC78 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Serbia with Kosovo map

Thanks for your message. The topic in question regarding the map actually was discussed long ago, with respect to the controversy regarding Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. The move, not recognized by the UN, considering that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 clearly reaffirms FR Yugoslavia's (to which Serbia is the successor state) sovereignty over Kosovo, was met with understanding by states that took an active role in taking control of Kosovo from Serbia - not to embrace independence would be political suicide and it is understandable. However, as the acceptance of Kosovo's move is merely a political question, not one of international law or factual information (such as Kosovo not really being independent, but rather supervised by the international community), questioning if the map should change would be equal to questioning the map of every country in the world that has separatist issues. This, of course, has not happened on Wikipedia, and a quick 3-day attempt to turn enormous Wikipedia consensus in keeping the current map upside down will not succede, as it would set a precedent for other cases. Sure Wikipedia works on a case-by-case consensus, but there are some standards when it comes to maps, while it is irrelevant if a number of users get together and decide they'd like the map to look differently - if it is not supported by facts and examples of how it is represented in such a way elsewhere. If that were the case, I could get 6 or 7 of my friends to start a discussion about renaming the Serbia article to Rashka, and we'd all agree and change it. This, after all, is an encyclopedia and the controversial aspect of the Kosovo status question is best left - to the Kosovo article itself. Better not to open a Pandora's box, as it does have implications for other regions and sometimes it's better to accept this map, just like people who are against Kosovo's independence accepting Kosovo's flag (unrecognized by the majority of the world) appearing on the Kosovo page. It's all relative and there were never any problems while the current map was there - nothing big happened in the world that would prompt any change - a crucial change that can not be decided upon in merely 3 days. I hope you understand. --Cinéma C 06:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We aren't redefining a country, we are marking something on a map (and updating the map to the new standards). It shouldn't be a big deal. Prodego talk 07:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit filter

Your edit filter which tags for repeated characters should not include hits on redirects. In biology articles it is courtesy to use anglicized endings for higher taxons for articles written for the general reader. So, your flag is hitting things like this: [[Dinoflagellata|Dinoflagellate]]. This would be simple to fix by excluding redirects. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

While I didn't specifically create that filter (I'm the last one who changed it though) I'd be happy to improve it. Could you give me an example of an edit that hit the filter that shouldn't have? Prodego talk 03:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
It's an edit of mine to a deleted article Diaphanoeca. I see you're an administrator so you can look at it. I'm pretty sure the hit was to a redirect from a taxon to an anglicized name for the taxon. Let me know if this does not help. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, everyone can see the abuse filter log, you can see the log of your hit here: [4]. It is actually the ''''' that tripped it, I've fixed the filter so that will no longer happen. Prodego talk 03:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Useful conversation then, since that's in every taxon article. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Serbia

An edit on the Serbia page stated that in 1912, Kosovo was "liberated" by Serbian forces.

The use of the word Liberated or conquered has been discussed here with USER:EV suggesting "There's no need to enter into the "conquered/reconquered" ("occupied/liberated") dichotomies, especially in the lead section. The English language offers more neutral alternatives that don't dwell in the perceptions of legitimacy: "In 1912, the Ottoman province was divided between Montenegro and Serbia" (or similar)"

user:Cinema has broken Wikipedia rules as well as erroneously describing his revert of me as "rv vandalism". (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

I suggest discussing it on the talk page again, and I think a word such as divided, or a similar word, will likely be acceptable to all. Prodego talk 23:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But user:Cinema reverted in bad faith and gave a false edit summary. If I did the same, I would be blocked. Why does this user get special treatment? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

I don't think you would be. I wouldn't block you, or him/her, for that, although I may leave a warning. But since I already left a more blanket warning on Talk:Kosovo, I don't think that is necessarily needed. Prodego talk 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but this is regarding the Serbian page, not the Kosovo one. The user blatantly edited in bad faith and also blatently lied in the edit summary. It isn't fair that Albanian users would be more harshly treated in such instances. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

I don't think any user would ever be blocked for doing that one action. Prodego talk 01:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Prodego, why have you unblocked Interestedinfairness after he has made sockpuppet accounts? Please explain your actions. --Cinéma C 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The short answer is because he asked me to. The long answer is that I feel that the user will not use sockpuppets again, is editing in a stressful and very much contentious area, and that his views, although not his actions in some cases, contribute positively in achieving a more neutral Wikipedia. And I believe that any problematic actions from him can be handled with topic bans, rather than a block. Prodego talk 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Your short answer doesn't make any sense. His actions before were severe enough for a topic ban, which was being discussed. He then made sockpuppet accounts to evade his short-term block, for which he was blocked indefinitely. The rest does not matter anymore. --Cinéma C 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton's RfB

Would you mind looking at Jennavecia's explanation of the IRC incident you cite in your oppose, and noting either there for everyone, or here for me, whether you agree with her assessment? ÷seresin 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/73&oldid=1082486013"