User:Prodego/archive/75

Special:AbuseFilter/213

Why the hell did you disable it? It seemed to prevent 64.228.128.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from doing anything, but 70.48.196.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) performed the exact edits it was meant to prevent.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am now aware that if edit filters do not have hits within 10 days of activation, they are deactivated. Is there a way that this one can be marked differently as it is obvious that the individual who it is meant to hamper does not edit every 10 days? And is there a way to catch the other edits he performs (section and sentence blankings) with the same or similar filters?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't so much 10 days, as it is if a filter doesn't appear to be 'worth it' then I disable it. Having too many filters means none of them will work, and someone has to keep the growth in check. That said, if the filter is useful (and worthwhile), then I have no problem with keeping it enabled. Just let me know if you do. I also made a small improvement to it. Prodego ^talk 23:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How so?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you did it worked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Drew R. Smith

I notice that you've had several run-ins with User:Drew R. Smith of late. There is an odd and rather worrysome thing going on with him on the reference desks. Someone asked a question about Venus fly traps: [1] - which Drew answered. There was a very minor question about whether he was 100% correct - he produced evidence in the form of a quotation from a book by Charles Darwin. But several of us didn't believe what Darwin had supposedly written - so we checked - and Darwin had written nothing of the sort! Not knowing Drew's checkered past and gazillions of run-ins with people, we WP:AGF'ed and took his claim to have quoted it from a copy of Darwins' book at face value. Lots of people (myself included) went off on a long chase to try to figure out how come Drew's copy is different from every other copy of the book on the planet. We suspected that perhaps he had a rare and valuable 1st edition or something. Conveniently, he says that the front page of the book is missing - so he doesn't know the copyright dates or the printer.

File:Insectivorous Plants Drew's copy.jpg

Eventually, he comes up with some story and produces a photo (at right) which he claims is from one page of his book. Indeed, the "photo" appears to back up his claim - so the ref-desk thread fizzles out with this left as a mystery. However, now, thanks to one exceedingly tenacious researcher we find that this "Photo" of the book was 99% certain to have been produced by someone using a modern font in the MS-Word package!! Suspicion is raised - I apply my image processing skills and lo and behold, the "photo" is indeed a rather carefully rendered fake! It's not just a photo of a fake book - it's not even an actual photo.

So we're left to understand that Drew went to a PHENOMENAL amount of trouble - and put the RD folks to a considerable waste of effort - just to avoid being 'called' on a bad statement. What we have here is someone who tried to cover up a small factual slip - which would be of zero consequence to most of us. When called on it, he faked a quotation, when called on the quotation, he fakes a photograph of a supposed book.

I'm deeply concerned that a Wikipedian would go to such lengths to fake a reference in order to avoid being called on such a trivial point...and it disturbs me greatly to wonder what other arguments this person may have won - and what disinformation lies inside the encyclopedia as a result.

So, belatedly, I check his 'Talk' page and discover that he's had all of these run-ins with the admins, been accused of sock-puppetry, of adding false statements to articles - to misbehaving in every way imaginable.

Given Drew's past history of blocks and bans, I really think this is the straw that broke the camel's back and we should consider a permablock. We can't risk someone with this kind of propensity to misquote and falsify primary reference material being allowed to freely edit the encyclopedia.

Thanks for your time. SteveBaker (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Answered at the link you provided. And, FYI, I never said it was a rare and valuable 1st edition. You did. I was under the impression that I stumbled upon a shitty fake. - Drew Smith What I've done 08:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Drew's talk page. Prodego ^talk 00:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to do anything more than point out the problem, and hope that Drew will be a lot more careful in the future not to disrupt discussions by putting forth dubious (or forged) evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 00:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re

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

Deletion of Article 'Furspace'

Dear user,

you just deleted an article almost the same second it was created, I just read the notice about a possible deletion and was about to edit the article to add more encyclopedic content.

Could you please notify me about how to go on with this page?

I was about to add ==External links==

• [2]

(for example), statistics (which already existed!!), the official logo and representation, further detailed information about the Web 2.0 engine, information about the authors, launch and other dates which already existed, Genre-specific information and much more.

Can you please tell me how it comes, that you go and delete new articles in the same second they were created? It doesnt make sense to me at all!!

--Worstbull (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

HornetQ

Hi, you removed a SD Tag from this article. Are you aware that the creator of the article is the same name as the lead engineer in the article? GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I still think that there is a possibility of a good article there. COI is a problem but ot doesn't break the article. Prodego ^talk 12:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove the spam warning from their page and replace it with a COI notice GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Prodego ^talk 12:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Meteor Shower

Hey, there: here, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind your position. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)#Minor spelling variations give the green light to my proposal, as does WP:RM itself: If the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is a navigation aid (e.g. a redirect or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history), the template {{db-move}} can be used. Whatever404 (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In short, I don't think it is "Uncontroversial maintenance", or an uncontroversial move. So I would prefer it be discussed, then requested. Prodego ^talk 20:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

William D. Carey

Saw you speedy deleted this one, on my watchlist. He had a decent sized NYT obit, which is a strong indicator of notability, as it 99+% leads to keeping at AfD; executive director of AAAS and publisher of Science, as stated in the article are also good indicators. Would you consider undeleting and/or taking to AfD?John Z (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are willing to expand it, by all means go ahead. I restored it for you. Prodego ^talk 20:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.John Z (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tecartherapy

Hi. I see that you have deleted my article on Tecartherapy. I wonder why, since it did include references to independent academic work mentioning the therapy as well as its extensive application, under that name, in two developed countries (Italy and Spain) that collectively have more than 100 million inhabitants. Does the fact that a therapy's name is associated to a company's name automatically render it un-encyclopedic? Aren't there other such examples in the wikipedia corpus? Thank you.Lonwolve (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ACC

Hi. I was recently given account creator rights. Why is it that I still can't create accounts that are similar? BejinhanTalk 06:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to put a tick mark in the box that says "ignore spoofing checks". →javért ^breakaway 06:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! BejinhanTalk 06:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Condition limit

What happens if something hits the condition limit? What does it mean by being equal to 1,000? (Maybe you should update that info on mediawiki.org, since I couldn't find it there). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.

Awfully sorry, I looked at the revision by the other user and everything but I suppose either I or the computer screwed up, I apologise. I am most grateful to you for removing my warning from the user's talk page, again, sorry for the error and thanks for fixing it for me, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Uw-spellcheck}}

Please undelete this template. It was useful for all the reasons that warning templates are useful. Not for robotic behavior, but how the heck to warn off messages like this: [3]? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in responding, I am on break. The reason I deleted that template is because you shouldn't attempt to warn off behavior like that. The user adding that info had good intentions, and that edit should be improved, not reverted. No one should be warned for edits that are well intended. I think your response at User_talk:Magog the Ogre#Shorts and your lack of response at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Why are you reverting to lies? are both good examples of situations that should not have been handled with outright reversion and warning. For more information on when reverting another editor's edit outright is appropriate, see WP:VAND, WP:ROLL, and WP:AGF. Prodego ^talk 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Much as I agree with you, you still should have deleted it without taking it to TfD first. If you wouldn't mind restoring it and sending it to TfD, it'll save us some time at DRV. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:uw-spellcheck

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:uw-spellcheck. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

ACC account suspension

I'd like to request that my ACC account be indefinitely suspended. I'm going to be on a Wikipedia hiatus for... I don't really know how long, but it'll be a while. Long enough for my account to be suspended for inactivity. So I'm notifying you now. Thanks, [flaminglawyer] 04:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done by your friendly neighbourhood WP:TPS. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Blackskin Gadget

love your blackskin gadget. ☺ people think that white on black is no better than black on white but it is. white background causes the pupils to constrict making it harder to see the foreground. but anyway, is there any way to make popups have a black background? I can barely read some of them. also, just a minor suggestion. You might want to consider offwhite text with yellow links that turn orange when visited. It seems to work pretty well for me. except that i cant get external links to be anything other than blue. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind I got it. I hope that you will consider my color suggestions though. BTW, is there anyway to change the color of the links and text in the left side panel? Or even the top section? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it, but sadly while I implemented it as a gadget (and made a few small fixes) I did not write it, and am certainly not qualified to make any of those improvements. User:Kormoran is the author. Prodego ^talk 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

@Skater:

Filter 204

I think so, yes. It seems to have thrown up a barrage of false positives this afternoon, oddly enough... hmm, not sure why. Too many single-word options, presumably.

I'll keep an eye on the relevant pages and re-enable it if we start getting the vandal back again. Shimgray | talk | 17:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Edicount update

I made a change on your userpage, more specifically updated the editcount link (the old one seems to be out of function). Hope you won't block me ;). Regards. kedadial 19:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:ACC

I am confirming I requested access to the Account Creation tool.--LAAFan^sign _review 15:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So threats are ignored?

The main reason the IP was blocked was because it made threats. It makes more threats, and you rollback my edits to put the block notice back on to make sure it is seen by any other members that come across it? Constantly removing the repeat vandal tag, this obviously shouldn't be allowed. –túrian^patois 18:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy states extremely clearly: "blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited." Perhaps when someone tells you the policy disagrees with you, you should actually check to see if it actually does. Prodego ^talk 18:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy also doesn't say something about IPs removing a repeat vandal tag. Why the hell would they keep it if they see it? Sounds kind of ridiculous. And I don't need IPs telling me about the "fucking" policies, especially someone who has continued to vandalize WP and make constant threats. –túrian^patois 18:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What's your personal interest in IP address 68.52.42.38? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Turian: if you don't know that he is allowed to remove warnings, then yes, you do need IPs telling you the policies. BB: 68.52.42.38 tripped an abuse filter I was testing, which looks for rapid reverts by non-autoconfirmed users: Special:Abusefilter/1. Prodego ^talk 19:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. And it's worth pointing out that blocked users can basically delete anything they want to except for unblock requests and, in the case of IP's, information about the IP, as it could be a shared IP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You could remove unblock requests as well if you wish (but generally not if you are just going to replace it with another unblock request. It is also worth noting that Comcast IPs are very static. Prodego ^talk 19:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing unblock requests, while still blocked, is not allowed. Regarding "threats", if there are continued threats after a block, they should be taken to WP:ANI for further action if an admin deems necessary - such as preventing them from modifying their talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

...Which I see an admin has now done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing unblock requests is allowed. You can do anything you want on your talk page, so long as it isn't disruptive. And that this IP was using his talk page disruptively is completely unrelated to his right to remove whatever he wants from his talk page. Prodego ^talk 22:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing unblock requests while you're still blocked is NOT allowed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You can remove anything from your talk page that you want. Removing an unblock request to hide that you had made it could be disruptive, and not permissible. But removing an unblock request without pursuing an unblock further is perfectly fine. Prodego ^talk 22:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, removing declined unblock requests is prohibited while blocked: [4] Presumably you can place an unblock notice and then delete it before it's answered, if you want. But if it's declined, it stays until the block is over. Than it can be deleted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

To repeat: you may remove anything you want from your talk page - including everything listed there - so long as it isn't disruptive to do so. Prodego ^talk 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The link I pointed you to says otherwise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The link you pointed to is a content guideline. It outlines what is and isn't usually disruptive. It does not mean that you may never doing any of the things listed there, indeed, as this policy says, "any editor may freely remove messages from their own talk page." Only if a removal were to be inappropriate for some specific reason would there be a problem in removing anything from your talk page. Prodego ^talk 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the part where it says "important exceptions are..." That, supported by frequent statements I've seen by admins that support what I've been saying. Removing declined unblock requests is against the rules, and will typically lead to denying user access to his talk page until (or if) the block concludes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You may remove anything you want from your talk page, including unblock requests, so long as it is not disruptive to do so. Prodego ^talk 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As the link says, removing denied unblock requests is assumed to be "gaming the system", hence it is automatically disruptive, and is not allowed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have no intention to request unblocking again, it is not gaming the system, not disruptive, and not forbidden. Prodego ^talk 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's really splitting hairs. The only reason to remove warnings and notices and such stuff from your talk page while blocked is to mislead readers, i.e. to be disruptive. If you don't request an unblock again, you might not be dinged for removing the one. But typically blocked users who mess around with their talk pages are trying to be disruptive, and have no other forum for their rants - as with the IP in this case, who finally was blocked from editing his talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I just gave you an example of a situation where the intention of removing the warning was not to mislead readers. This user removed warnings, which is something that you are clearly allowed to do, so he isn't a good example of how removing unblock requests should be dealt with. Prodego ^talk 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see... I have the policy telling me that removal of declined unblock notices is against the rules, and I have seen countless examples of admins saying the same thing; and I have you telling me differently. Guess which viewpoint is likely to be right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

But you could be right and I could be misunderstanding. Just to be sure, I've posted this question at WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter 159

Hi, Pro. For some reason, that filter had in fact failed to detect some recent MascotGuy socks. Can you please repair and reactivate it when you havew a moment? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It didn't catch it because I had disabled it. It was log only, and no one had noted they were watching the log, so I assumed it was abandoned. I take it you are monitoring the log; I added a note saying that and reenabled the filter. Prodego ^talk 22:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prodego. You have new messages at Cubs197's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks a lot! Cubs197 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ACC tool

Hi Prodego, it was indeed me who requested access to the account creation tool. Thank you for your time and effort. --Pgallert (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ACC

I was wondering what you think I should do to help gain a higher level of trust.

Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

ACC

I have been editing Wikipedia for 3 years. Not all of my edits are under the account itself however. Is there any way I can show that I have been around longer than my account shows (Mostly for future reference in case I am asked this again)?

ACC

I believe I do, I just need to check around.

A Question about the Devon Preparatory School Revert

While you restored the School's Logo, you also removed some valuable information and backdated other 2009 information to 2008. I was wondering why. Wa3frp (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It was easier to just revert the whole thing than to try to sort out which parts are acceptable. My theory was that I would revert first, contact the user, and then discuss with then what should and shouldn't be changed, as well as possibly get some citations for the information (both the new and old sets of information are uncited). However, the user appears to be ignoring me, which isn't very useful. Prodego ^talk 03:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If I had wanted to invest additional time in to it, then yes, the best thing to do would have been to revise and sift through the edit. However, I did not want to do that, and since the edit was POV, I reverted the whole thing. If you think you can do a better job, then feel free to make any changes to the article yourself. Prodego ^talk 16:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is disappoining that you are taking a personal dispute with another user (your quote - "...the user appears to be ignoring me...") to the point where you revert his copy, post nothing in the discussion page of the original article, and feel upset when someone calls you out for doing so. And I'll take the time to add back the 2009 data and other info that you unforunately felt necessary to delete. As you correctly noted, the best thing to do would have been to revise and sift through the edit. If I post something that you don't like, can you please take it to the discussion page before doing a wholesale delete? Thanks! Wa3frp (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The username was "Devonpublicity", the account is obvious a WP:ROLE account and the user obviously has a WP:COI in the area of Devon Preparatory School. If you want to do something differently, go do it, and don't complain to me. You asked me why I reverted the edit, I told you that I intended to discuss it with the user and determine what should and shouldn't be in the article. Therefore, I said that unfortunately the user never responded to me, and thus there was no discussion about the article. I can hardly have a personal dispute with someone who has never talked to me. I also suggest you read WP:BRD - noting that that R for revert comes before the D for discuss. Prodego ^talk 18:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)