Misplaced Pages

User talk:Prodego: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:06, 4 September 2009 editMagog the Ogre (talk | contribs)Administrators100,719 edits drvnote← Previous edit Revision as of 23:32, 4 September 2009 edit undoLifebaka (talk | contribs)15,116 edits →{{tl|Uw-spellcheck}}: would be quickest if you reverted yourselfNext edit →
Line 536: Line 536:


: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 ] and your lack of response at ] 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 ], ], and ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:42, 4 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 ] and your lack of response at ] 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 ], ], and ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. <font color="green">]</font>] 23:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


==Deletion review for ]== ==Deletion review for ]==

Revision as of 23:32, 4 September 2009

PGP Key

Archives

Sandbox


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 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

Oh, figured it out. Never mind. :) Vicenarian 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) 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 Misplaced Pages has an infinite amount of, all articles are works in progress. Discussion will ultimately lead to the best outcome. Prodego 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 15 June 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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. –xeno 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 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 - 14,000 Croats killed
    • International sources - 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/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 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 Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 22 June 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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 Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 29 June 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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 Misplaced Pages, and a quick 3-day attempt to turn enormous Misplaced Pages consensus in keeping the current map upside down will not succede, as it would set a precedent for other cases. Sure Misplaced Pages 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 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: ]. 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 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: . It is actually the ''''' that tripped it, I've fixed the filter so that will no longer happen. Prodego 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. And I believe that any problematic actions from him can be handled with topic bans, rather than a block. Prodego 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 Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 6 July 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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

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 . 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 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 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

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 Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Prodego 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 05:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah - now I understand. A deletion review is different from a deletion discussion . 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     02:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I just use gmail: Prodego@gmail.com. It is free, and does not reveal your IP address. Prodego 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     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 04:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
If only the man didn't block my access to webmail services at work. Thanks though.    7     04:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 27 July 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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 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 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 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 02:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 3 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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 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 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 done 20:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
And I see that you did. Thanks. Xymmax 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 10 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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 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 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,

–⊥Noetica!– 11:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 17 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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)

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 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: - 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 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 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==

(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 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 12:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Meteor Shower

Hey, there: here, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind your position. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 20:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 24 August 2009

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: ? 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 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)