Jump to content

User:Prodego/archive/83

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaza flotilla

Actually, it is supported in the Ynet sources, and has even been unmistakenly proven by video evidence. Protesters did indeed attack the soldiers.--RM (Be my friend) 03:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Block?

May I respectfully enquire the thoughts behind your statement that the comment you referred to was a blockable offence? Personally, I am stunned that so much fuss is being made about it (though admittedly, the admins involved appear to mostly consider it a minor WQA issue) especially when stuff like this receives only a slap on the wrist. I would be interested to hear an opposing view reasoned by someone as sensible as yourself? (That may sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I genuinely don't mean it to be so!) ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First your edit: "and that meaningless, irrelevant drivel just about sums up your participation in this thread of the discussion. I will not be [[WP:DFTT|engaging further]]". If you look at this, there really is no constructive aspect of the comment. If the entire discussion is entirely meaningless, irrelevant drivel, why are you still commenting there? This comment certainly isn't going to improve it. But the real issue for me is that wikilink - linking to DFTT to call someone a troll is feeding the trolls if the person is a troll, or a baseless attack if they aren't. Either way it is only going to be disruptive. Much like wikilinking "don't be a dick", it is never going to have a positive effect. Regarding Giano's comment, that one also wouldn't be acceptable, and it was removed because of that. Prodego talk 18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. The comment it responded to was also devoid of any constructive content, not that that excuses my losing it a bit! ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Gaza aid shipment

Hi Prodego, In light of the changes you made to the naming of the passengers you may want to check out this part of the discussion Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_2#Activists_or_passengers.3F and help to determine what the most non-POV way of describing the passengers would be. In the past it has been suggested that not all the passengers were necessarily pro-Palestinian, protesters, or peace activists so blanket statements about who they were seemed non-NPOV Zuchinni one (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Flotilla Raid — "Two of the activists declared the desire to become martyrs"

This is certainly relevant. It takes only a few aspiring martyrs to turn a confrontation into a violent clash. I don't see where WP:UNDUE comes in here. Please elaborate on the article's talk page before I revert.  —Rafi  23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm continuing the discussion on the article talk page.  —Rafi  23:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision article protection

Prodego, I noticed you protected indefinitely the Circumcision article. It's been a while since you did that, and looking at the history, it's fairly clear that much of the issue here was edit-warring by editors using IPs (particularly AOL dialups) to avoid detection. Would you mind changing that to semi-protection instead? That would force all editors to take responsibility for their edits, and allow established editors to continue improving the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dropped the protection, sorry about that. Prodego talk 00:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Would you consider semi-protecting it instead, in order to avoid the problem I've mentioned above? Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure, feel free to do it if you think it is needed, I'd have no problem with that at all. Prodego talk 00:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I would, but I've edited the article fairly recently (on May 7 and on April 26), so I'd like to avoid any accusations of impropriety. A completely uninvolved admin would be better, I think. Would you mind? Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Prodego talk 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim Joyce

Can you please reduce the protection. I think you pulled the trigger too fast. There was very productive editing going on at this time. Thanks SAE (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalized just 6 minutes after it was semi protected, so it looks like full protection will be required. The proteciton expires in 24 hours. Prodego talk 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
but a couple of vandalisms surely don't require protection... there's no history of vandalism here... but whatever SAE (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ACC Tool

Hello, could you re-activate my account on the ACC tool? It was disabled due to inactivity, but I now have the time to be active again. Also is it possible for me to have my accountcreator rights re-instated? I previously had them but they were removed due to the same inactivity. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 04:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please consider

Could you please restore the full protection to Circumcision. As soon as you reduced the protection to semi, Jakew reverted to from a WHO (unbiased) summary to the disputed text, and deleted the agreed upon (discussion consensus) chart and picture. Jakew's ~revert came after long discussion that ended with the majority of editors favoring leaving the protection and the existing version.Zinbarg (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection isn't an endorsement of the protected version, so no I can't do that. Prodego talk 06:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you…

…for that. It's rare to see anything sink so low it's too stupid even for a WP-space angels/pinhead exercise, but god knows that managed it. – iridescent 00:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Prodego talk 05:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What to do about a self-outing editor?

This in reference to this post on ANI. Your comment was that this shouldn't go directly to Oversight. So now I'm curious as to how I should have handled it? Thanks, SQGibbon (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If the user identifies as a minor, then it should go to oversight (and the user informed why it was removed after the fact). Otherwise I'd suggest removing it (if it isn't on a userpage) and getting it rev deleted if the information is very personal (address, phone number etc). Then, let the user know that the information is be publicly viewable. If the are fine with it, then do nothing, if they are not, it should be rev deleted (some oversighters might oversight it, some won't, either way emailing oversight will get it either rev deleted or oversighted). In the case of just an email address probably do nothing, or remove it is if is a location like WP:HD or WP:RD. Prodego talk 04:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Please don't be disruptive

Please don't be disruptive and remove discussion from the RFC about CU/OS. Someone (HJ) put a joke one there but the ones that I put are very reasonable.

One trouble with many discussions in life is that many see things as only 2 alternatives, black and white, US Democrat versue US Republican. In many countries, like Finland, Belgium, France, Germany, there are more than 2 signficant parties. There is also more than one solution to problems. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Special:AbuseFilter/313 (Skype Toolbar Formatting)

I find the same problem affects confirmed editors too. What was "acting oddly" with the filter that was resolved by or somehow required this change? DMacks (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

IIRC the number of conditions the filter was using was strangely high - which it shouldn't be as it is a pretty simple filter. I made it confirmed only to reduce the number of times the filter checks edits (the confirmed status has already been checked by many other filters). I've removed the check, we will see if that problem went away. Prodego talk 05:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Personal attacks at Inedia

Hi Prodego. Since last time we met you suggested that you could have acted if I informed you about a PA, I am just letting you know that user Nazar flings personal attacks at me: diff1 and diff2 and diff3. Also false accusations of personal attacks. I would appreciate if you just let this guy know that this is not appreciated here. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you for informing this user. However per your last comment on their talkpage advising them to inform you if they encounter any problems, I advise you that there will be no problems arising from my direction. I have created an RFC on the article talk page while at the same time informing the No original research noticeboard in a conscious effort to alert and involve the wider community to this problem. If these efforts fail I will not be engaging any further with this editor for reasons that I already enunciated clearly. Thank you for your efforts nonetheless. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Accusation of edit warring

Sorry, lapse in concentration. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 02:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Solar System

Hello... FYI, the page is protected because of perpetual issues with IP vandalism. As well, it is scheduled to become a part of the test of the "pending changes" system in a few days time. --Ckatzchatspy 04:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's been no IP vandalism since 2008 because it has been semi-protected; in addition, the article is protected from moves because a) there's no reason to move it, and b) it was a target of the Grawp vandals. The core astronomy articles attract a lot of random "noise" due to their high traffic levels, and I would assume SS was added to the test because it is a core article. However, the PC test phase should help answer your concerns; if the vandalism is still present, it will show up in short order. --Ckatzchatspy 05:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Fine done. Prodego talk 05:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've had to undo it. The page is not scheduled to change to "pending review" until day five of the test phase, and they are being pretty specific about sticking to the assigned dates. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 05:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Do they really care? I'll have it moved up to day 1 if you'd like. Although I suppose it won't matter at this point it is just a few days anyway. Prodego talk 06:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, it's now at day 2, batch 3, which is the next batch to be done. I haven't trawled the history to see who moved it though. GedUK  12:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/83&oldid=1150994262"