Jump to content

User:Prodego/archive/74

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ohai

You removed User:Captain planet just while we were discussing it :-) Good work. I was going from the WP:NFCC#9 angle.

Not on IRC?

Anyway...well done, keep it up, etc.  Chzz  ►  04:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


Hey

Hey, if you wouldn't mind having a look at this page for me [1]. Please tell me if user:Ricky is justified in reverting my edit. In my edit summary, including here and then tried to appease other user here and then removed disruptive edit here and then another one here I have discussed the dubious sources before yet user:Ricky seems to have involved himself irresponsibly in the page.

I have responded to him in 2 places, the admin has not replied, instead he has added comments Topic ban page, which is clearly an attempt by like minded users to oust me.

I would appreciate if you had a look at the Adem Jashari page to clarify for me if I've broken any rules. Thanks, Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither you, nor they, have done anything 'wrong'. But I think you could make a lot more progress via talk page discussion (as I normally advise) then by changing each other's edits. Prodego talk 15:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's good to know I haven't broken any rules. However, I'm finding it increasingly hard to work on articles when I'm constantly being reverted by groups of editors who appose my presence. The Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire page is an example of reversion by users who disregard the talk pages and have no history of editing on the article. I have reached some sort of consensus with a user on the talk page however, but I can't edit because I will just reverted or accused of silly things. The reasons are cliched responses, "vandalism" "tendentious" editing, and so forth. Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: your unblock of user:Cnm2009

Prior to reversing this user's block, did you determine whether or not he was a sockpuppet of Cabarrusnowmagazine and examine his user sub page User:Cnm2009/CabarrusNow, which is apparently an ad for the magazine? Exploding Boy (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did, and yes he is. Prodego talk 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

WuhWuzDat 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review

I don't know where to post this - so I'll post it here and elsewhere. I see that you closed a deletion review here [2]

The text states: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. "

Why does it say that no further edits should be made to the page, but that subsequent comments should be made in a deletion review? It is already a deletion review - it makes no sense for it to request that future comments go in a deletion review. Should I edit the template or whatever the wiki thing is that is adding that confusing text? Uncle uncle uncle 05:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What I closed was an MfD - Miscellany for deletion. There is a separate process, DRV - Deletion Review, which is understaken to contest the closing of MfDs (or AfDs, CfDs, FfDs... etc). You can read about deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Prodego talk 05:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I understand somewhat about the closing, but I think that the text of the template or boilerplate or whatever it is called is confusing. It says Please do not modify it, but then it says Subsequent comments ... should be made on the appropriate discussion page ... such as ... in a deletion review That makes no sense to me - as it already is a deletion review but subsequent comments are not allowed. Uncle uncle uncle
It is not a deletion review. There is no deletion review for that MfD. Someone would have to create one, if they wanted to contest the way I closed it. Prodego talk 05:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah - now I understand. A deletion review [3] is different from a deletion discussion [4]. A deletion discussion would come first and then possibly a deletion review. I was confused because in some cases a review is a discussion but here a review is a discussion, but not the same kind of discussion as the original discussion. Thanks, for clearing that up. Uncle uncle uncle 05:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Account creation tool request #33676

Thank you for re-pointing me to the guidelines - I understand now how to guage about similar names... that was the first request I handled, and I made a mess of it... I'll do better next time. Thanks for letting me know. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Acct Creator

Hi - just wondering if you noticed my question here. Just wonder how/if you remain anonymous when doing that. I too wanted to provide an explanation but was unable to do that from my work email.    7   talk | Δ |   02:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I just use gmail: Prodego@gmail.com. It is free, and does not reveal your IP address. Prodego talk 03:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
But it does reveal your email - but I'm judging from your reply above that you're not worried about that ;) - Would be nice if the acct creator tool let you add a custom message to the bottom of the standard reply. Oh well, thanks.    7   talk | Δ |   03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yea, that way they can email me back with their reply. Having a dedicated wikipedia email account is useful for that. :) Prodego talk 04:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
If only the man didn't block my access to webmail services at work. Thanks though.    7   talk | Δ |   04:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AEE

I have to say I find the closure of this to be otherwise than suggested by the consensus. Counting !votes (and leaving out the "not-vote-count" bit for now), we get 24 delete, 17 keep, 5 userfy, and 2 mark-historical. That's 31 people who don't want the page to exist there, compared to 17 who do, and even then several of the keep comments were weak, tentative, etc. Judging the comments I would have found a rough consensus to delete. I say this not in any expectation that you'll amend your decision, but as it is required that I consult you before bringing to DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Prodego talk 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure why we needed a DRV to userfy something, instead of just moving it, but hey, whatever works. Prodego talk 20:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Off to take the bar examination; back on August 1.

Keep an eye on things for me, if you could. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For helping me get set up on IRC! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit filter

I was unaware that there exists the perception that edit filter rights are more restricted than rollback/autoreviewer. Can you please point me to where that consensus may be found on wiki? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah; the page itself says it is admin-grantable and I didn't see anything about restrictions. So we have to have an "RfC" each time a non-admin wants the flag? -- Avi (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

--Rockfang (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom Filter

Yes, I see. I created one specifically to the request; you worked your magic for something bigger. I'll disable mine in a bit unless it's taking up too many resources. Since they are slightly different, it may help to get two views. -- Avi (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That's fine; thanks again. -- Avi (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thou hast mail of the electronic kind…

…prithy, canst thou sparest the time in which to respond? With gracious thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Prodego talk 15:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished. You have a boatload more coming in -- Avi (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved page without talk page?

Hi Prodego! I was wondering if there was a specific reason why you moved Electronic learning to E-Learning without moving the associated talk page. I thought the two generally moved together. I realize most of the discussion is stagnant and may need archiving, but I was curious if there was something special about this that warranted separating the two. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with the move; I never really understood why it had been done that way previously, even after reading the discussion. It was really just the loss of the discussion history that I didn't understand. And I see you just restored it, so everything looks good now. Thanks for the quick response! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper

I noticed that you too seem to have drawn the ire of this contentious user. I'd like to direct your attention to some Wikigaming[5] that he's been playing with me today, after recently vowing "to do everything in my power to get you permanently excluded" from a article in which we butted heads. I wish something could be done to rid me of this Wikistalker. ViperNerd (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed 5 reverts in 24 hours. Wikistalking aside, if that is your IP it is well within his 'rights' to report you for that. If you have other examples of where he is following you around, then perhaps there is something we could do about that. He is blocked for 48 for now, anyway. Prodego talk 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Except that is not my IP. WHOIS lists it in Brazil (I'm in the USA), and I notice that it was blocked today for being a proxy. My belief is that Wolfkeeper used it in an attempt to make good on his threat against me, but I imagine that would be difficult to prove. At any rate, thanks for your attention. ViperNerd (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Well in that case you have nothing to worry about, you won't get blocked for it. Prodego talk 02:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Filter question

Hi there. It looks like you disabled filter 189 a couple of weeks ago. Was that a server load issue? If not do you know if there is a plan to turn it back on? I actually found it to be useful in catching some BLP vandalism that was slipping past Huggle and ClueBot. My apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere - I didn't see it on the Village Pump or on the filter talk page, but the technical side of the project isn't my forte. Thanks. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That, and because it seems to get a lot of false positives. I can reenable it if you want. Prodego talk 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Speaking just for me, I'd like it back up. Maybe set it log only, and then output the log somewhere where patrolers can review the diffs? Or maybe a less bitey tag, like "possible negative information on a BLP" or something. All I know is I stumbled across a couple of coatracks by reviewing that filter log, pretty much anything that helps catch BLP violations is a good thing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
And I see that you did. Thanks. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Hi there. I'm completely sure that you mean well but I've never accepted the widely held belief that talk pages should never be protected (or in my case, semi-protected). Protection is a necessary tool and it was necessary in this case. Someone who I had previously reported to AIV was creating multiple sockpuppets and slamming my talk and then my userpage with vandalism. In this case, it was easier than reverting my talk and user pages multiple times while I kept hitting rollback and went looking for admins to play whack-a-mole. Furthermore, they were creating subpages with a huge amount of HTML in them and dropping openlinks into my talk page to try and crash my browser. Have a look at my contributions during that time period and you'll see some of what I'm talking about. Anyway, cheers. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There were three accounts. That was the first sock. I went to my talk page and my browser crashed. I reported him, asked to have my talk protected, and then spent the next couple minutes rolling back his vandalism until he was blocked. Then this account popped up [6], and did the same thing to my user page. Same result, danced around with for a couple minutes. There was a third sock after the second one was blocked who kept undoing my AN report and various edits. If you look at my contributions list, I edited a number of articles in a short time, all rollbacks. I think Jauerback or someone deleted their browser-crashing subpages too but I guess you can see them. Anyway, they seem to be gone now. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the whole point was to keep nonautoconfirmed users from placing links on my talk page to constantly crash my browser. If it had been left un semi-protected they would have kept doing that and I would have had more rollbacking to do, and probably had to deal with my browser crashing every time. Standard vandalism is one thing, this is a horse of a different color. :-) Pages that are under attack from multiple socks or IPs are frequently protected for a short time until the vandals move along. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, my talk page is just as important as penis and Barack Obama. :-) I was surprised at the one-week protection but I figured that was up to the one doing the protecting (I only asked for a day). Cheers. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ARBCOM

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Javert, Rjd0060, and Jimbo and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew R. Smith (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sincerest Apologies

My account has been compromised (my fault really, I had a very simple password), and used maliciously in my absence. I apologize for any trouble caused under my name, and would like this arbcom case closed. I am available for questions, and would like to help clean up the crap that has gone on in my absence. Drew Smith What I've done 11:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the reverts. Cheers, ZooFari 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kosova2008

Hello,

You blocked User:Kosova2008 on August 3 for vandalism and his block has expired after a week. However, the very next edit he made was also vandalism link. He has been warned, blocked, but he continues to vandalize. Please take some action. Thanks, --Cinéma C 04:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism, but certainly a problem. I'll leave him a note. Prodego talk 04:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Calling Serbia a colony of Russia isn't vandalism? --Cinéma C 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha tell Cinema to cry me a river. You can't block people in wp bc they aren't Serb. As far as the "vandalism" in the Rep of Serbia page...omg that was hilarious, you can't tell me you didn't chuckle. But I dont plan on doing it again. Not anytime soon hehehehe :D. Peace & Love. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I was assuming it was just a very blatant POV push. I had already blocked him a week for the prior vandalism, and based on his above comment I blocked him indefinitely. Prodego talk 22:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your removal of √ from edittools

Prodego, you have removed the symbol √ from edittools. I hope you will look at what I say about this at the edittools talkpage here, and also in an earlier section. Your careful consideration of this issue would be appreciated.

Regards,

–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 11:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

too much drama over a minor thing

Hi. I'm back to my usual user page. In the future, please discuss any concerns you have, ok? *That's* what WP:USER says to do and it works wonders.

I'm not sure if we've really met; I have seen you about over time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ACC

You're listed as an ACC dev, and as such I'd like for you to comment at User_talk:X!#ACC with regards to an automated notifier script. Cheers! Smallman12q (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd still like for you to comment.Smallman12q (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Please comment.=DSmallman12q (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/74&oldid=1075396286"