Jump to content

User:Prodego/archive/89

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Question with respect to your removal of certain rights to my alternate account

Dear Prodego, you recently removed various rights from my alternate account. The alternate account has been created by me for use when I am on public computers; I should also wish to initiate high frequency editing using this account. I quote from our userrights page. "Administrators also have the ability to grant and remove account creator, rollback, ipblock-exempt rights, confirmed user, auto-reviewer, and edit filter manager rights to other users, and to their own alternate accounts." I request you to kindly place back my rights. In case you have no issues, I shall place back my rights myself. However, I shall wait for your reply till tomorrow. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 11:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are certain requirements for giving certain rights. Abusefilter editor requests must be made on WT:AF. Admins are not supposed to give out IPBE even to themselves without a reason. You are adding many restricted permissions to an account that you are using in what you consider unsafe enough environments to not use your admin account. Particularly with abusefilter editor and IPBE that is a problem. Prodego talk 13:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate and understand your views. Giving due respect and acknowledgement to your points, I shall not flag my alternate account with the abusefilter editor rights. Similar would be my treatment with IPBE rights, with a caveat. In case I might have to use a public computer for an elongated time, and in case the IP is blocked even for logged in users, I shall grant the alternate account the IPBE rights for the period such use might occur. At the same time, I do believe that the account creator right would allow me to edit edit filters notices with much ease; therefore, I should prefer flagging the alternate account with the same. Would you be alright with this proposition of mine? I shall not proceed pending your reply. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Will follow the pointers. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Well-uh... can I have administration rights on my account then, Pro..day..GOOO? Sudpiop (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


Re: WP:WQA

You're right; I'm sorry. I need to rinse with WP:CALM and repeat. It's just tough enough to take a bunch of frickin' teenagers making decisions about an encyclopedia, still less their having the gall to treat grown up and experienced editors as if they were, well, teenage newbies.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:

I've replied over at the articles for deletion page. ℥nding·start 10:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I do completely get it. The only thing I'm guilty of here is leaving the message to too many people. And I realize that. I hadn't known how much I actually left it on before it was mentioned. And FYI Kevin told me if I reverted again, he'd consider a block, so I asked someone to revert it for me. What's wrong with that? The user was being disruptive, and if I did it again I'd be blocked. I have NEVER formed a gang, I've just asked for comment, and there is NOTHING wrong with that. Yeah, I left too many messages on people's talkpages, its a simple mistake. I just wanted to get the notice across. ℥nding·start 15:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Prodego: Thank you for taking a look at this. As you may know/remember, I edit in multiple topic spaces and I've noticed for quite some time some very strange things going on in the pop music topic space. I haven't cared enough to bother looking into it, but this sort of canvassing appears to be going on all the time. I saw Ending-start's posts and was tempted to ask what them what their selection criteria was, but decided not to persue the matter. BTW, one of the other strange things I've noticed seems to be admin protecting pages on very questionable grounds. In one particular case, there was a content dispute and an admin protected the page on the grounds of vandalism. I questioned the admin and they kind of admitted that it wasn't vandalism, but again, I didn't care enough to persue the matter. If you see any other cases of improper canvassing, please let me know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert the other day. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
  • I have to say I think this action was rather premature and reverting the protection is bordering on wheel warring. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Unless a valid reason is given for an admin action, it violates policy. We can't just go about blocking things protecting things (particularly not user talk pages) without giving reasons. I certainly don't see any possible justification in the page history. Prodego talk 23:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hello, I've sent you an email. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Prodego, if you read the log it was quite clear that it was at least worth the curtesy of contacting the admin who had protected the page - as someone who has asked for huge numbers of pages to be unprotected I wouldn't have unprotected the talk page in question here.
  • You seem to be making an alarmingly large number of poor admin decisions. Firstly there was removing the India-Pakistan cricket match on ITN which had clear consensus, secondly there was the ITN image which was rather out of the ordinary and now this, in a really rather short space of time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • India-Pakistan you have a fair point about. But given that I've just blocked SCG for lying to Dabomb to get his talk page protected, I do think I know what I'm doing in this case at least. As for removing the ITN image, that isn't that unusual, I'm not sure what the complaint about that would be. Prodego talk 06:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Notice how HJ Mitchell swapped out the image when he saw the problem after restoring it. The image he added was for a hook that wasn't on there when I edited the page, so I had no such image to add. You might also want to look at this section of Talk:Main Page. Prodego talk 07:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Except that actually if you look at the diff that wasn't actually true at all. He restored the image that was there before, as the story that was there before was still there. And actually ITN often has an image which doesn't relate to the top story.
  • In this latest case you may have been proven to be correct in the end, but that wasn't obvious at the beginning. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It takes a few minutes to find a new hook an image for it to avoid the shipwreck problem, so I'd consider that delay in changing the image reasonable. As for this case, it was obvious to me in the beginning, but I had additional information. Could I have been less blunt, yes. Probably should have been too. But I didn't do anything without a good reason. Prodego talk 07:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Rq deletion of revision comment by recently banned vandal

Hi! Noticed you got rid of Mackwilson21 just now. Can you please also remove the (somewhat NSFW and irrelevant to the topic of the article) comment he left behind on revision 423214725? Thanks! Moocha (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I generally oppose rev deleting things like that, though many admins do it. It causes no harm, as far as I can see, and makes it clearly to users why I took the action I did. Prodego talk 21:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notification

As you deleted the article, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFD_.2B_7_Days_.3D_expired_PROD.3F Exxolon (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Abuse filter

Can you perhaps offer more helpful comments regarding filter 397? It's caught a fair amount of userpage vandalism already. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

61 conditions on the condition limit is too high. Don't reenable any filters until the percentage hitting the condition limit is below 2%. It was at 7%, disabling 397 and one other filter lowered it 2% on their own. Prodego talk 03:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Where is the 2% limit specified? I can see the need for it, since exceeding the limit defeats the purpose. Can you offer any specific advice on the filter? I assume ccnorm is an expensive operation, so I removed it (and left the filter off.) Why the sudden spike in hitting the condition limit? (It's over 5% right now.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
2% is a convention for the max acceptable condition hit rate we've (well, Nawlinwiki and I anyway) been following since the beginning. String operations aren't as expensive as you might think, text is cached between filters so things like lcase, or ccnorm if used on a variable in any filter are saved for the rest. Regexes are also cheap. Long lists of contains_any, or long sets of multiple things connected with and or ors are the more expensive things. Werdna understands far better than I. Prodego talk 04:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I turned off 289, since it was consuming up to around 70-90. 148 consumes several hundred on average, but it's an important filter. 354 is currently averaging about 40-60. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably should have mentioned this earlier, but note you have to refresh several times to get good numbers. The value at any one particular time can be very wrong for those. Prodego talk 04:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, I noticed that. 289 is definitely a hog, though. 354 is more acceptable, which was why I left it on. With 289 off, condition limit is being met by just over 1%, so is it alright if I turn 397 back on? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. Monitor the condition hits of course. (Note most of the change was probably from NW cleaning up some of his stuff.) Prodego talk 04:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This why 399 is disabled as well? The times I looked it wasn't using very many conditions; what did you see? 28bytes (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
For some reason it was when I did, but that might have just been transient since I don't see any reason it should be too bad. Give it another shot if you'd like. Prodego talk 12:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll enable it later today when I have a few minutes to keep an eye on the stats. Did you see anything in there that could be better arranged to minimize its condition usage? I patterned the order after other active filters, but I didn't know if there was a canonical list someplace of which conditions should typically go first or if it was strictly a trial and error thing. 28bytes (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I enabled it for 20 minutes and gathered some stats. Could you take a look at this log and offer your interpretation of the results? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

GNAA

Hi

I history merged the old (in user space) and the new, so all history should be there. There could be upto 4 forks in the hisotry from the userspace draft. It will be a pain to split it again, but should still be possible aas there was a clear split date. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

what would you recommend for the overlapping history part, should it just stay deleted? That is probably achievable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ke4ron adminship

Ke4ron has explicitly expressed that He will accept if you nominate him. The question is will you nominate him. Your will. mauchoeagle 19:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

no big deal....

hello - "Even if he makes only a single administrative action then his having the tools is a net positive." - a single admin action> are you joking? he gets to see all the deleted data forever access to the extra buttons forever and you consider a single action as a net positive? Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Adminship isn't about giving editors rights to see or do things other editors can't because they are in some way 'better' than the undeserving non-admins. It is about giving tools to trustworthy editors such that they can use them in a way beneficial to the project. While obviously a single action is taking things to the rhetorical endpoint, I don't particularly care what anyone can do, but rather about what they do do. If what they do is a net positive, no matter how small, it is a good decision. Prodego talk 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree completely with your position - crap and inactive admins are almost impossible to get rid of and should require a decent reason to promote, without it its a net loss. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note

I have removed the barnstar after thinking. It was that the people that wants it removed are right. Also, now, I do not like the note. You really changed it by removing good parts. I find. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You may get back the barnstar if you want.

I don't decide what the notice is. I just do what the community wants. It is a consensus based project - feel free to contribute to the discussion over what message to include. Prodego talk 21:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The discussion isn't done. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please undo this edit

Please undo your edit to MediaWiki:Previewnote. That discussion was hardly advertised to the rest of the community, yet effects every wiki. This (that discussion) is an absolutely unacceptable way to go about changing the software, considering most other very very minor changes go through weeks of voting ON the village pump. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, every wiki? Weeks of voting is a waste of time, but you are free to go discuss it where it was being discussed. It certainly wouldn't be a problem to change it. You do seem to be in the minority, however, so I won't outright undo it at the moment. Prodego talk 15:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Weeks of voting is indeed a waste of time, but on the other hand, 4 days is hardly enough. I can guarantee that several more users will be discovering that mediawiki venue where the discussion is taking place, which I'm sure most are unaware exists, in the coming 24 hours. I found it by doing a search for "preview" on the village pump proposals, after the change had been made. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, and we can change it as more input arrives - that's how wikis work! Prodego talk 15:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I also recommend changing it back. This is a fairly substantive change, and should be implemented only after a clear consensus. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

AN/I post regarding Francis E Williams

Do you plan on taking action on this? I'm not an admin, but someone has to do something so things don't go stale and pop up at a later time. It's just Francis E Williams and the IP throwing insults at each other now. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, just saw your block. Of course, there's still Francis E Williams. Guoguo12--Talk--  23:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The silver lining

This toy block is awarded to Prodego for blocking himself.
Cheers! Courcelles 02:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked Yourself????

  • 22:01, 1 May 2011 Prodego (talk | contribs) blocked Prodego (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism)

I hoe you still can edit --Guerillero | My Talk 02:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically this blocked me. Interesting to note you can no longer unblock yourself. Prodego talk 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like it. [1] WP:BLOCK#Unblocking should probably be updated. Or not. Someone have an idea what happened? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC) — updated 06:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

bin Laden

Please take over this article then. If you leave it unprotected, you should make some effort to keep it cleaned up. See my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Rmhermen (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Explain to me, why certain edits are allowed to remain, even if they look completely nonsensical, or even seriously defaming for the subject in an article. Do admin robots here read pages to evaluate what's to be done? What are you doing? Palo Alto Guy (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Characterizations are encyclopedic

Hi! About this edit

I say it is encyclopedic to state how journalists and RSes characterize and depict events. If they compare them to similar events or cultural works, then that is encyclopedic. I absolutely believe that we need to state that a journalist compared the American reaction to Osama's death to the Munckin reaction to the witch's death.

Having said that, there was a better place for the comments - I posted the characterization in the "reactions" article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Paliku

You blocked this user indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. Do you think it is possible that User:Metnik is the same person also? I know it is flimsy evidence, but Metnik reverted a redirect that Paliku spent a long time edit-warring over, so I just want to be sure this is not shenanigans from a user continuing a pattern of misbehavior. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a month ago, I don't recall why I did that, I'd have to look. Prodego talk 19:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, got you. BOZ (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Have I misunderstood talk page protocol?

You reverted my reinstatement of a block notice on User talk:Francis E Williams after he blanked the page. I though according to the policy that I cited that current blocks (not expired ones) had to remain. Am I wrong about that? --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between ban and block, it isn't terribly important but since he is indef blocked at the moment it doesn't matter what he does. Prodego talk 19:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I never realised there was a difference. If he is indef blocked why is he allowed to fiddle with his talk page and selective reinstate disruptive material like he just did? It would be so much cleaner if this person were blocked from doing anything. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 19:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Reinstating disruptive material generally leads to talk page access being blocked. That case is very very strange so I wouldn't use it as an example of the way things normally are. I'm not convinced that user should be blocked, and I want to leave the option of apologizing, etc open to him. Prodego talk 19:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, you answered my question. I'm not a neutral party as you clearly are, but would like to add that my past experience with this editor is one of pure vindictiveness and a reluctance to let things drop. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 21:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

HD

I don't see "better" being a reason to remove my post. CTJF83 20:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your post shows a demonstrable lack of helpfulness - it doesn't belong on a page called the Help Desk. How could your comment be seen as even remotely constructive? The user apologizes, and you, what? Answer an irrelevant question? Prodego talk 21:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, which criteria of WP:TPO does it meet? There is 0 reason you couldn't just post below it. CTJF83 21:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed your comment because it is not the appropriate response to an apology. Prodego talk 21:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
And the help desk isn't an appropriate place for an apology, and by letting the user know it is for questions only, we avoid future non-Wikipedia related questions posted to the help desk from that user. I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. CTJF83 21:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Since I'm already bugging you, are you able to answer Wikipedia:Help_desk#Creative_Commons_Attribution-Share_Alike_3.0? CTJF83 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, sorry missed the question. Prodego talk 01:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prodego. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 15:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Prodego. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

OrangeMarlin

I really don't like that this editor continues to refer to me so disrespectfully. And I am not thrilled about how rudely he has responded to you and Ebe either. He keeps referring to me as having "Pro Acupuncture POV" or a "Pseudoscience POV" while nothing I have done during my short time at Wikipedia has demonstrated this. Again, I think I wandered into a snake pit when I decided to first edit at Acupuncture. I just saw one aesthetic thing in the entry which needed clarification and before I knew it I am being attacked by OrangeMarlin as being a pseudoscientist, as someone who edit wars and as someone who doesn't participate in discussions. These are three false character assassinations. Ebe mentioned that there is an etiquette alert program at Wikipedia and I would like to file a grievance against OrangeMarlin because I don't think his behaviour should be tolerated by a newcomer, let alone experienced editors.67.127.100.144 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is nothing much you can do other than avoid him. Of course when he actually reverts or severely abuses you that's easier said than done. He has a very long history of this behaviour on articles that are on his pseudoscience watchlist. On other articles he can be quite constructive. He has a lot of friends in Wikipedia, and unfortunately they enable his behaviour rather than reigning it in. At some point years ago he was banned by Arbcom in a secret case. They were totally right that something had to be done about him, but on that occasion they learned (it appears) that that's not how to do it. He has recently reappeared after a 2-year absence which I believe I cause, at least in part. At his present rate of breaking all behavioural rules it can't be long until he is properly banned. Hans Adler 17:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I will deal with it. Prodego talk 18:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Artist decline

Didn't you already decline once for this block? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Also you have exactly 32000 edits at the moment. Prodego talk 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't count until I hit 32768. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DeltaQuad 2

Fair comment. Made me laugh and think. Thanks Prodego. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not much of a content contributor myself. Prodego talk 02:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Userfying

Do you mind userfying JamesErnst:draft glabra for me please. mauchoeagle (c) 02:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

To your userspace, or his? Prodego talk 02:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
His userspace. mauchoeagle (c) 02:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Done, leave a note on his talk page explaining why the move was made and provide a link to the new page please. Prodego talk 02:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:H3xStack

Hi there, I was wondering why you removed my ANI notification at User talk:H3xStack...? Regards, GiantSnowman 01:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, very much so, but rules are rules, and editors must be notified when they're being discussed... GiantSnowman 08:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Rules are but codified practice. If they they do not make sense in a particular situation, you should ignore them. Prodego talk 14:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd never have thought that WP:IGNOREALLRULES applied at ANI, but as the old saying goes, you learn something new every day. Thanks for the advice. GiantSnowman 14:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you did there...

[2] *chuckles* SirFozzie (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we have some critics. I would have gone for the underloved emdash, but alas, its ungainly size thwarted it once again. Prodego talk 23:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

New release editnotice

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Template:TFA-editnotice. A similar edit notice has recently been developed at Template:New release editnotice. It is intended for films, video games and other prominent popular media items which may be subject to high levels of editing by newcomers around the time of their release date.

Any thoughts would be welcome. Yaris678 (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

IP block

Yesterday you blocked this IP for vandalism. The IP editor doesn't see the vandalism, and nor do I. Wrong button? (Happens all the time to me). Jsayre64 (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

[3]. Prodego talk 03:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

213.246.81.40 unblock request

He's stumped about what the block is for, and so am I. Could you clarify? Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed that - I may have misinterpreted the edit he made. No harm in unblocking, I'll leave a note. Prodego talk 03:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

RFPP

I went ahead and protected those two userspace pages. I hope you don't mind too much; I just didn't want to see more time wasted on such trivial matters. Feel free to reverse my actions, of course. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To avoid giving anyone incorrect interpretations of policy you shouldn't make any protections that you don't believe are justified on their own merits. But if you protection of those pages would be a net benefit to the project, for any reason, I'm perfectly fine with you protecting them. Cheers, Prodego talk 03:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know there was a big argument about semi-protecting my talk page until I saw this comment because I found out you fixed Template:Wikify (Yay!). Unbelievable arguments happen everywhere. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 15:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your block of Badger Drink

I have reviewed the diffs that led you to recently block Badger Drink for 48 hours. Although the way he expressed himself was obviously not optimal, I think there was some provocation involved, and am not convinced that this was a good block.

Badger Drink has posted an unblock request. Since I have had extensive negative interaction with TreasuryTag, I will not review or act on the unblock request, but I've noted my opinion on the request and thought you might want to respond there.

Also, in your block summary, I don't know if you meant to say "tendentious editing" or the like rather than "tenacious editing."

I appreciate your work around the wiki and am sorry to find myself in disagreement with you in this instance. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I also want to dispute your editing restriction here, can you revisit it please ? Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked BadgerDrink. You might want to read the big box at the top of the WQA page that explains what the page is for. The whole point is to discuss without the threat of blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Ding!

Hello. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template. — Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Joshue Fireman

In the clear light of a new day, I'm inclined to leave be. Muzemike put a noindex on it. No response from the creator on his talk. Is anything to be gained by WP:Mfd? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If he doesn't touch it (or edit) in a month, delete it then, for now, I'd agree with you. Prodego talk 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

"this is covering all my interface buttons" ?

WTF Prodego ? I hope you have a good reason for editing my userpage ! [4] Your edit summary sure does not. How is My userpage effecting your interface buttons ? and if somehow it is, I suggest you fix your page and leave mine alone.
Mlpearc powwow 15:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you look at your user page using the Monobook skin, it is pretty obviously covering up the Username, My talk, etc. links. I'd suggest fixing that. Plus, what's with the inflammatory reaction? Logan Talk Contributions 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Not for me, it looks completely normal, just a little out of whack but I can see the buttons and things.  JoeGazz  ▲  19:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I don't use monobook, so it seems this your guys problem not mine. Mlpearc powwow 19:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
And that is no reason to remove content of someone else's userpage ! Mlpearc powwow 19:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree! Prodego, you don't go around removing stuff from another's userpage because you don't like it, or it affects one of your buttons. Get over it! Fix it yourself and move the buttons. Gosh. People work hard on their userpages, you basically vandalized it. Don't ever touch someone's userpage unless you are going to make it better, NOT REMOVE ITEMS! You basically just invited us to come do the same to your userpage and remove items we "don't like" or "affect our buttons". Don't do that. No one really cares about your buttons. They can't be that hard to move. I am sorry that this may come off very strong, in a way I am venting on this situation, but it just seems that it shouldn't happen, even from an admin. Sorry again,  JoeGazz  ▲  19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Calm down. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, now I understand the situation that you removed these in and the WP:SMI, I apologize to you Prodego for the overreaction to such a little thing.  JoeGazz  ▲  16:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I happen to agree with Prodego's sentiment here, but not his method. Yes, it's annoying when userpage stuff covers the interface, so I know exactly how Prodego is thinking. Asking would have been nice though. [stwalkerster|talk] 19:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Sees perfectly reasonable to me. Your userpage shouldn't interfere with people's ability to access the interface in any common browser or skin. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected WP:SMI. Do my blood pressure a favor, before you change anything in my userspace again let me know first. Give me a day or so, I'll adjust my page. Mlpearc powwow 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Mlpearc, you might want to change everything to {{topicon}} This is what I did after concerns were raised in my RFA. see here. —GFOLEY FOUR— 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Gfoley4 I will look into that, I assume that template auto-adjust the icons to the skin of the viewer ? Mlpearc powwow 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
They will be smaller so I don't think it will interfere with the interface links. —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

WL filter

Until we have a better tracker for it, please keep it enabled, unless it's doing any demonstrable harm (it's just logging at this point). It's referenced from a few places and people are using it.--Eloquence* 04:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Novak page move

Hi. I applaud your boldness in moving Novak Djokovic, but it would have been nice to see some discussion first. "Might as well" is not a great reason and I dislike the idea that something like this can be decided at ITN. I am not sure you are familiar with the history about moving this article (see any of the archives), but this is a controversial move and should at least have been discussed at the article talk page first. There are other ways to make it consistent without moving the article. It is move protected and I am unable to move it back, so am first requesting that you do so. That way it can at least be discussed at the talk page. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic should be used not Novak Đoković

The reason behind your move is not in line with Common Name policy. This is a search that was done by your name, and it came up with the other former name, so I would argue your move is wrong. I would advise a self revert rather than having a community decision on WikiProject Tennis to make this decision.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Barring demonstrated consensus otherwise (such as that there is a different, common name), we should probably go with the spelling he uses. I don't see a problem either way, but it should be discussed if we use a name other than what the subject himself uses (particularly for a BLP). Prodego talk 01:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Actually, in English, he spells it "Djokovic". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm on that page it is spelled both ways (the banner and the match stats at the top differ from the stats below). Probably should definitely go to a discussion on the talk page then. Prodego talk 01:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes it should go to a discussion on the talk page. There have been many discussions before, but as he is currently receiving a lot of attention at the moment it might have a better chance of reaching consensus this time. It would be good to get some consistency in the article. However, I ask that in the spirit of WP:BRD you self revert first though. AIRcorn (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the issue discussed at Wikipedia talk:In the news#diacritics consistency (and the fact that a large segment of readers will be accessing the article via the link on the main page), I think that retaining the "Novak Đoković" spelling for the time being is a more pragmatic approach. —David Levy 02:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The article shouldn't have been moved while on the main page in the first place, really. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps not (and I wouldn't have done it), but this is an unusual case in which the main page link was displayed in the style to which the article was changed (as a result of the aforementioned discussion).
As it stands, I think that retaining the "Novak Đoković" spelling (pending further discussion) probably is the least problematic course of action. —David Levy 02:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It's problematic because it was a controversial move done without any discussion at the articles talk page. Surely the main page can use a pipe or redirect to the articles original name? AIRcorn (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The policy clearly states we must "not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." This is pretty clear cut and dry to use Djokovic not the way he uses it officially.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way as an aside, this is the English Wikipedia not the Serbian Wikipedia, which the other version would be acceptable usage because that is how the media uses it in Serbia. This means we must follow the English language sources rather than his official name on his webpage.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is not the place to argue what the name of the article should be, that should be done on the talk page. Whether the article is changed back or not this issue will undoubtedly be raised there soon. AIRcorn (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
There's going to be controversy either way. In my view, given the fact that the move already has occurred, retaining the spelling that matches the main page blurb (pending further discussion) is the less disruptive of the two options.
I realize that we don't want to encourage out-of-process moves, but this situation is unusual enough to fall far outside the realm of precedent. —David Levy 02:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
After it gets off of the main page it should be reverted back to policy to the English usage. Right now, I buy you pov but in a week the unusualness of it falls by the wayside. I will leave it alone till then, but then after that I will move it back, just as a heads up. The atp uses Djokovic, australian open Djokovic, and so Wimbledon uses Djokovic, so I believe it is embedded in the English language and reputable tennis sources to use Djokovic.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest discussing the matter immediately. Given the added attention that the article is receiving, it's possible that a consensus (one way or the other) will emerge soon.
If clear consensus for the "Novak Djokovic" spelling is quickly demonstrated, I don't think that we should even wait until the item is off the main page before moving the article back. —David Levy 03:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)An issue I see with retaining the name is that the talk page discussion could very easily close as "no census to change". This would mean that the article will stay this way, whereas no consensus should really mean that the established name stands. I read through Wikipedia talk:In the news#diacritics consistency and admit I am not very familiar with ITN, but fail to see how reverting to the previous name will cause major problems? AIRcorn (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Given the fact that the move was performed unilaterally, I agree that the "Novak Djokovic" spelling should be treated as the status quo (and restored unless there's clear consensus for the "Novak Đoković" spelling).
To clarify, I don't believe that either course of action would cause major problems. —David Levy 03:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to imply anything by using major. I just feel that if a decision is made outside of precedent then there should be a good reason not to change it back. AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what you all do, I just made the spelling consistent with David's change. So long as it is consistent at the end I'm happy. Prodego talk

Okay, I have moved it back. For some reason it didn't work the first time I tried. I will start a discussion now. AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok changed the ITN entry to match then. Prodego talk 14:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

User:151.40.177.217

Now leaving offensive messages in talk page. Could access please be revoked? Calabe1992 (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

Please continue the discourse in the talk page of the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit/ This is the statement in question that was cited: "The F-35 could be thrust into the spotlight if the planners judge that the B-2 reaches a point where it is no longer able to penetrate enemy air defenses—especially in daytime. The B-2 does not carry standoff weapons, noted Alston. Threats that keep a B-2 from performing direct nuclear attacks could, in effect, hand that mission, too, to the F-35." Other sources also deal with the replacement of the B-2 as being radically different than the present aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Regarding you blocking my alternate account ⚖ (talk · contribs)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Σ talkcontribs 03:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

22:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
06:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bit of 4chan espionage

Indeed I do [blacklisted link to http://boards.4chan.org/b/res/342706325#342711427 removed to archive]. Thanks, wackywace 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries about the accidental block. I'm watching it as well; looks like they're looking for another page right now. wackywace 17:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

Noting that WP:REVDEL states "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed. Administrators should consult as usual if uncertain that a revision would be appropriate to redact." could you explain how my log entry at Amy Winehouse falls within one of the existing criterion? Ironholds (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You vanished it?

Right here. Aren't you supposed to move it to the archive so that we have a copy of it and past actions, in case something comes up again? SilverserenC 20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unless the whole thing was trolling. Feel free to archive if you think it isn't. (seriously) Prodego talk 01:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Account Creation Interface access

Hello Prodego, I am sorry for mishandling requests 64517 and 65018. I have re-read the username policy and made myself more familiar with its provisions, so that such an incident may not happen again. Would you please consider unblocking my account? --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Here you go!

For the hard work, dedication and commitment you've put into helping improve Wikipedia in the various administrative areas you work at over the last 5+ years please accept this award as a token of my gratitude and thanks. Hope real life's not weighing you down! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:55pm • 09:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Prodego has been inducted into the Order of the Mop,
for their commitment and dedication and is entitled
to display this award for being a fantastic admin,
Kind regards, thanks and happy editing,
—James (Talk • Contribs) • 09:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

For a userbox version go here.
You are member number: 48

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

RfB

You're one of our admins who's been around for the longest, and I'm sure you would make a great crat! Please let me know what you think. — Kudu ~I/O~ 13:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would go particularly well, unfortunately (or perhaps, fortunately :)). Thanks for the offer though. Prodego talk 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thanks for your suggestion! :-D Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fix or not?

Hello! Are you sure this edit is a correct fix? As you can see, when you removed the (( template, the templates are now transcluded on the MediaWiki page, and this may cause issues when choosing the block reason from the drop-down menu. The templated {{ were added for the same reasons. Can you check to see if your edit has caused any problems? Otherwise, would you consider reverting it? Regards, HeyMid (contribs) 08:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The parser is pretty fickle in general. In the MediaWiki namespace, it's much, much worse. Certain messages allow only wikitext, others allow only plaintext, and still others still support raw HTML. The hack at MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown has been revised a few times over the years, as MediaWiki upgrades occasionally break it (the nature of hacks...). If removing the {{((}} template fixes the problem, great! If not, another hack may have to be devised. It should be trivial to test. That said, nobody should expect any hack to last forever. Inevitably future releases of MediaWiki will ensure that this issue recurs. (For reference, it was Tim who fixed the code the last time during the migration to the new preprocessor.) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The parsing behavior in the Mediawiki namespace, as MZMcBride says, is pretty inconsistent. What works with one version of Mediawiki is liable to break in the next. Removing this template seems to cause the menu to work at the moment, but I'd certainly believe it was required for the menu to work in the past. Is the menu not working for you? Prodego talk 21:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prodego. You have new messages at Ebe123's talk page.
Message added 23:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 23:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you un-protect now? ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 19:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Kim Jong-un

Though it might be a bit too long of a lock, I wanted to thank you for protecting the article on Kim Jong-un from vandalism. 204.106.255.122 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ITN

On a related note, please remember to locally upload and protect Commons images before placing them on the main page. File:Kim Jong-il on August 24, 2011.jpg was unprotected (and subject to vandalism) for approximately nine minutes (and it often takes much longer than that). Thanks! —David Levy 04:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's how long it took me to find zscout, I don't think 9 minutes is such a big problem. Prodego talk 04:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
We've had vandalism occur in much less time than that. Why didn't you simply upload the image locally? That's our standard procedure, and it surely is easier than flagging down a Commons sysop. —David Levy 05:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Downloading and reuploading and copying the file information over was more work than I wanted to do, particularly when it was so easy to flag a commons sysop down. Prodego talk 05:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
If that's how you want to do it, please wait until the image is protected at Commons before transcluding it on the main page. —David Levy 05:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Gardner interview?

Explanation please??? Tony (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Please delete it

Can you go ahead and close and delete the draft in this discussion? All of the other keep votes were predicating on my statement and i'm bowing out. I'm just going to work on it from scratch (which i've stated I would multiple times in the discussion). Thanks for your time in the first place. SilverserenC 19:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but if you start from scratch, I'd suggest keeping your draft offwiki. The tone of that MfD as I read it is that they do not want any Circball related content on Wikipedia at all. Rewriting it from scratch will likely not resolve that concern. Prodego talk 19:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It just aggravates me. They have some policy for that draft, fine, I concede that, with the whole sockpuppet involvement. But a new draft from scratch should be fine. So many of them were arguing that because it was deleted at AfD, it can't be made into a draft anymore, which clearly opposes the policy on the matter. I feel like I should try to get the policy changed so articles deleted at AfD can never be made or worked on again, if that's the consensus here. :/ SilverserenC 20:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems as if there is a pretty solid consensus to have no circball content anywhere. MfD is partially for the case where there is agreement something should be deleted, but not a specific policy to immediately delete it. There isn't much you can do, unfortunately. If you work on the draft on your computer, then I'm sure people would be willing to look at it again when, and if, you think it is ready to become an article. Prodego talk 20:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Circball Draft Deletion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Circball Draft Deletion. 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. 108.23.117.2 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Circball

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Circball. 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. Relist 108.23.117.2 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Lupe Fuentes

Could you explain to me why Lupe Fuentes was deleted without an AFD or even a PROD? Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 13:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes. A (what I consider to be) very credible legal threat was posted on a Wikipedia noticeboard regarding some content posted in that article. I did a cursory look and the information seemed to be weakly sourced, and I was unable to verify it using more reputable sources. At least one of the claims should have been easily verifiable; so, out of an abundance of caution, I deleted the entire article until the legal team takes a look at it. Once they do, they will determine what action is appropriate here, and restore any portion of the article that they determine is not problematic. Hopefully this will take not too much time, in any case the page deletion should be temporary. Prodego talk 16:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the explanation! Dismas|(talk) 22:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been several weeks. What is the status of the legal review? I did not view the original threats as being that credible given the long and varied history of porn stars throwing tantrums and empty threats when things don't go their way. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The status is that it has vanished in to some sort of black hole where nothing happens. I'll restore the page, if we can agree to cut all the interpol stuff out. If we can't agree to that I'm not willing to undelete it personally, but I'd still agree it should be undeleted. Prodego talk 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I can not agree to that given that this assertion is supported by enough reliable sources to merit at least a discussion. current google news google news archives. For example, Fuentes's husband was recently arrested in Hungary and the Hungarian newspaper article refers to Fuentes as having an Interpol warrant issued against her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then I'm not sure what we can do here. Prodego talk 05:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Then it's time for a deletion review. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Keywords

You were luckier in your assertion about the search-engine than I was. Now a search for "Malleus, cunt" finds the page among the top 10 returns. With your removal of the keywords, I could not find it.

I provided a link to the discussion at Blade of the North's talk page, in the RfA page discussion, for your convenience. Perhaps you missed that when you repeated Blade's reversion of my edit.

Finally, I removed the embolding from the keywords, which doesn't help the search engine, I believe.

Best wishes,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a separate objection - that adding those so called "keywords" serves only to cause more disruption. Thank you for ignoring it. Aren't you supposed to leave "due to solidarity" or such nonsense? Or are you going to stick around to cause trouble? Prodego talk 00:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Prodego,
Perhaps you should edit in a language other than English, which seems beyond you.
You continue to have trouble with only.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Fresh Beat Band

You're not by chance a CheckUser, are you? I'm fighting an army of socks at this article (one of which you blocked), and am impatiently waiting for a CU to come around. Calabe1992 03:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not. There isn't much to gain by cuing that guy either. Prodego talk 03:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks anyway. Asking for CU to check on sleepers. Calabe1992 03:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If they haven't used them yet, they probably won't be using them. Also because those users appear to be on some sort of dynamic range, it would impossible to be certain about a sleeper account. Prodego talk 03:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Talkback

Hello, Prodego. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 13:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 13:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou

Hi Prodego, thanks for your kind message on my userpage :):) IBE (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

What?

Your unprotecting of my talk page was totally uncalled for. It was indefinitely protected after long term abuse by anons (and the long term abuse continues on my unprotected user talk page). It is also very discourteous to unprotect my talk page without asking me first. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page --Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim1138

109.153.143.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
The only revert I made (that I see) was [Legge, 10th Earl of Dartmouth] which also reported the IP to AIV was because he changed the birth date from 1946 to 1937. A search of William Legge on [google] gave several results with the 1946 birth date so I reverted.

180.215.44.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
changed the number of awards from 7 to 8 which did not appear to be supported by references. Jim1138 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW: neither of the diffs that you listed on my talk page for 180.215.44.122 were ones that I reverted. Jim1138 (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for early close

Thanks for the early close at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zalgo/Oh. I commented there that other subpages need investigation. After having a look, it seems that the encyclopedia could only benefit if all the subpages were deleted, although several of them would survive MfD on the basis of "what's the harm?". The user's comment at the MfD ("May i remind you WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm a troll... So ta <3") is a worry.

At User talk:Zalgo, I tried to click "User contributions" in the sidebar, but I cannot because an image (File:Insanestamp.png) is floating over that portion of the page. When I reviewed Special:Contributions/Zalgo, I 9found it hard to find a single useful edit in the past year (and did not bother looking any further back).

The following subpages are similar in style to the page you deleted:

I present all the above in case you think it warrants attention. I quite understand if you conclude that the trouble is not worth it, but I wanted to post this somewhere after taking the effort to look. I will look for any reply here (no need for talkback). Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You can remove whatever is blocking the user contributions button, and you can remove any of those pages you've listed above that Zalgo placed on other user's userpages without their permission. Prodego talk 07:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears to me that with the toolbar image you can just scroll down so that all buttons are clickable. Is this not the case in your browser? Prodego talk 07:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. I wasn't motivated to experiment when I encountered it as the text of the image was quite a way below the "User contributions" link, yet clicking that link still went to the image page. Also, I didn't bother finding out where the image came from—it turns out that it was placed there by another editor in a very recent comment. I would prefer that people did not have to work around floating images, but I agree it's a minor matter. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

IP user talk page deletion

Hi - what's the reason for deleting User talk:208.80.154.52? The user seems to have carried on vandalising after my block.  An optimist on the run! 06:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That IP is owned by the WMF. Edits appeared to come from it because of a server misconfiguration, but they were not truly from that address. That issue has been fixed now, and no edits should ever come from that IP. Prodego talk 06:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but I'll keep it on my watch list, "just in case".  An optimist on the run! 06:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
You should check with WHOIS who owns an IP before blocking. If it is ever the WMF, you should report it right away. Prodego talk 06:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a technical expert on the internet, and have no idea how to go about tracing IPs.  An optimist on the run! 06:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand, luckily we've tried to make this process pretty easy! If you look at an IP's contributions page, you should see a number of links on the bottom of the page. Among these are WHOIS and geolocate. If you click them they'll give you what ISP (comcast, AOL, the WMF...,Department of Defense...) owns the IP, and where it is located. Prodego talk 06:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:João VI of Portugal

I saw how you made the numbers section a "collapsed", could you do that for the two, closed move requests, they would still be there, but It would tidy up the page a bit, dont you think ? Thank you :) Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think those requests are still relevant to the discussion, so we should keep them there. Those users certainly had relevant points to the topic at hand. They will be archived eventually by a bot. Prodego talk 08:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

About João/John

Hi, Prodego. Good to meet you. I'm sorry for creating a thread here instead of making comments on João VI of Portugal's talk page. Unfortunately, the comments made by the three users who opposed the move were far of what we could term "appropriate". Now back to track. I've been for the last years what you could call Wikipedia's resident expert on Portuguese/Brazilian history. I wrote FAs such as Pedro Álvares Cabral, as well as Pedro II of Brazil (the grandson of João VI), as well as Empire of Brazil. Check them out later if you can, you'll enjoy the reading.

The name used by English speaking scholars is always, not often, but always "João", "Pedro", "Maria", etc... They keep the name in their Portuguese form. You doubt? Check the articles mentioned above and take a look at the sources used, such as this, this and this, for example. Since the pronunciation of "João" is practically the same as the French name "Jean" (such as in Jean Pierre, or Jean Paul) or you could also read it as "Joao" and it would be the same too, but there is no difficult on saying the word. But, are there historians who use the name "John"? Of course there are. For what I noticed so far, certain historians who write about topics other than Portugal's history, such as Napoleonic Wars (the period where João VI lived), Europe or something alike, they use "John". Probably because all other kings receive the same treatment, such as Paul I of Russia, Francis I of Austria, etc... Books written about João VI or Portugal use the Portuguese name. Even so, there are more books that call him "Joao VI" than "John VI".

Sorry if I seem to be walking on circles here. I was talking about how and when each name is used. Now for practicability: we have Maria I of Portugal (not Mary I, if the name was in English), who was the mother of João VI of Portugal, himself the fathr of Pedro I of Brazil and Miguel I of Portugal. João VI was also the grandfather of Maria II of Portugal and Pedro II of Brazil, both siblings as children of Pedro I (that is why Portuguese and Brazilian history are tied together). Could you imagine what would happen if we change the name to "John VI"? How could readers understand this person with an Anglo-Saxon sounding name on the middle of Latin names? Would we start adding on parenthesis their translated names too? (Peter I, Mary I, Michael I, etc...)

Anyway, I hope I was able to be clear. I as well as all others who supported the move are ignoring the discussion on João VI's talke page because the three editors who opposed the move aren't there to discuss. In fact, i have no idea why they are there. They never made any edit on João VI's article or any other related article. They made sure that they simply don't like this "foreign" sounding name. I'm certainly one who won't waste time discussing taste.

Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why you chose to ignore my message. --Lecen (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Didn't notice it, as I got it and the next one at the same time. But you just seem to have left a statement. I am not sure what sort of response you are looking for. Prodego talk 00:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
See this and you'll get what I mean. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comments

Please stop doing this [5]. It's disrespectful of the editors who have taken the the time to comment, is unnecessary, and not consistent with established Wikipedia WP:TPG and local convention Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/Volunteer_instructions11:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)

The filing user specifically requested it. Also, what good can that possibly do on WP:WQA? If nothing good is going to come from a discussion like that, there is no point in leaving it around to attract problems. Prodego talk 19:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

WBD?

Sorry, I'm probably being dim, but I didn't understand your recent edit to Gabriel Gorodetsky, and I didn't recognise the edit summary abbreviation "wbd" (and couldn't find it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations#W). Could you please explain the abbreviation for me? - David Biddulph (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I didn't actually think anyone would read it. "Will be deleted", which I don't think is in common use. There is an image of identical name at commons but a different subject. The subject of that page complained on the help desk that the image was wrong. I restored the enwiki image, which had been deleted due to a lack of proof of licensing, and asked him to provide it (the page said it came from him). He never responded, so I'm removing the image now because I'll forget if I don't, and if I don't it will switch over to the wrong image again. Prodego talk 06:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I had the page on my watchlist after the help desk thread, so that's why I spotted your edit. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for help with vandals :) Safehaven86 (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Perfectly right Right of course" - ???

I am hoping to be able to continue to consider you neutral in your important work on a discussion where you and I have both been involved recently. However, this is seriously dismaying to that end. Would you care to explain why you are encouraging such highly inappropriate behavior, as it looks to me? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you also support such blatant harassment as would make me have to ask for the third time that that person stay off my talk page? SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are overreacting. I have a total of 4 edits on your talk page. You can't ban people from your talk page simply because they say things you don't want to hear. I will respect your wish for me not to post there anymore, but I will also reserve the right to give you the very pertinent advice of avoiding to use legal terms such as slander, especially when said slander refers to me. I'm not going to jump through hoops to get in touch with you, just because you have no threshold for back-talk.--Atlan (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Prodego? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


Don't expect me to be online 24/7! If I'm not editing, I haven't seen your messages yet. Obviously trying to put words, particularly words with offensive meanings, in to your mouth is not appropriate. When I read his comment I did not notice he was referring specifically to comments of yours. I can see this situation is going to require more aggressive action than what I have done so far. Thank you for pointing this out. Prodego talk 22:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
As long as you don't conflate me and User:Alarbus. That's already happened twice today.--Atlan (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll do my best! Prodego talk 22:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, better safe than sorry. ;) --Atlan (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the Joao/John move discussion

It took awhile until you noticed me, but better later than never. I have my own opinion about this entire discussion and second move. But since it won't matter, I rather prefer to remain silent. If you had seen the "discussion" since the beginning you would have understood why I lack any patience with these people. The problem is that they keep lying over and over. And why should I bother on writing anything? When I say that historians use "João VI" they say that "my number are wrong". Damn. From all of them there I am the only one who actually writes articles about the subject being discussed (I've been for the last months working on Pedro I/Pedro IV, his son and heir) and who actually knows about how historiography handles the matter. Would it matter? Nope. People like seeing the name of kings in English. It doesn't matter if you read an article about Bismarck, von Moltke, Albrecht, etc... and then you stumble on a Kaiser "William I". Everyone keeps his/her own name in their own native languages but not monarchs? Am I the only one who sees that this one ridiculous and absurd rule here? --Lecen (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"... whether that will be "Joao VI" (2nd common) or "João VI" (rare) or "Joaon VI" (perhaps) or "John 6" (maybe)" John 6 is a maybe? There is also a Joaon VI? And João VI is rare? What? See the English spoken books used on articles such as Empire of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil. The name is João VI. Not Joao, not Joaon (which doesn't exist) nor Joao 6 (also does't exist). I won't discuss with people who know nothing about the subject and refuse to learn. Mark my words: if this article is returned to John, it be completely abandoned as it has been for years. None of those editors care about it. --Lecen (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This one is also amazing: "For the record, Pedro IV and Pedro II of Brazil are listed in Wikipedia article titles as rulers "of Brazil", and not "of Portugal", whereas this king, John VI, is "of Portugal"..." Emperor Pedro I of Brazil was also King Pedro IV of Portugal and King João VI was also co-Emperor of Brazil. By the way, we have Peter III of Portugal and also Pedro V of Portugal. And we also have William I, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor. This rule created to name monarchs on Wikipedia is dumb and ridiculous. --Lecen (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, and I prefer the name Joao. But consensus involves not just my opinion and your opinion, but the editing community as a whole. Sometimes in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, people will do things that you think are wrong, but there isn't much you can do except make your case. If they don't listen, oh well. Prodego talk 22:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Walsariad made a big deal out of it, saying that the last move had no consensus. I wonder if both João V and João VI will be moved with so many votes against its move. Are talking about consensus or majority vote? Because I can post a message on Wikiproject:Brazil and Wikiproject: Portugal asking editors to share their opinion. And they will vote for João. Trust me. I saw Walsariad and his friends asking the opinion of Jimbo Wales on his talk page, knowing quite well that this was canvassing and it would attract other editors. I don't do this kind of thing. Don't have to. --Lecen (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Posting to Wikiproject Portugal would be fine, as it directly relates to the page. Brazil not so much. I assure you that whomever closes that RfC (be it me, or someone else) will look not only at the number of arguments in each direction, but also their strength. An argument saying "Because John/Joao is his name" is going to get very little weight, whereas a more thought out comment explaining what would be needed to use each name, and why it falls in to a particular case would be much more persuasive. Prodego talk 23:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"Brazil not so much." On 1808 the then-Prince Regent João fled along with the entire Portuguese Royal Family to its largest and wealthiest colony, Brazil. See Transfer of the Portuguese Court to Brazil. On 1815 João elevated Brazil from colony to Kingdom united to Portugal, with the same status as its former motherland. See United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves On 1816 he became King of Portugal and King of Brazil. On 1821 he returned to Portugal against his will and left his son and heir Pedro behind to fule Brazil on his behalf. On 1822 Pedro declared Brazil independent but still aknowledged his father as King of the independent Brazilian Kingdom. A few months later Pedro became Emperor and elevated Brazil to the status of Empire. He warned that in case his father returned to Brazil, he would step aside from the throne to João VI. On 1825 João VI recognized Brazil as an independent nation and became its co-Emperor. He died on 1826. His son, Emperor Pedro I, became King Pedro IV of Portugal. He abdicated his crown to his daughter, who became Maria II of Portugal. He later also abdicated the Brazilian crown to his son, who became Pedro II of Brazil.
Pedro I then travelled to Europe and invaded Portugal. His younger brother, Miguel I of Portugal, had usurped the throne of Maria II. Pedro I won the war and restored his daughter to ther throne. He died on 1834, a few months after his victory. As you can see, João VI has everything to Brazil. He lived for 6 years as King in Brazil and only 4 in Portugal. He was also King of Brazil and later its Emperor. Notice too that we are talking about João VI, son of Maria I of Portugal (not Mary I), father of Pedro I (not Peter I) and Miguel I (not Michael I). He was the grandfather of Maria II (not Mary II) and Pedro II (not Mary II). It will be odd to see a "John VI" among all those Portuguese names. Very odd indeed. --Lecen (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

In 2008, there were celebrations all over Brazil for the 200 year anniversary of João VI's travel to the country.[6] He is far more important in Brazil than in Portugal. Now that he established the importance of João VI to Brazil, let´s talk about how American and British historians deal with him. So far there is no biography in English of João VI. There are, however, biographies of people clsely connected to him:

One of the best biographies of Pedro I of Brazil was written in English by Neill Macaulay and its is called "Dom Pedro: the struggle for liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798-1834". It calls João... João.
The best biography in English about Pedro II of Brazil is "Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825-1891". It also used João VI.
The best biography about Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil (daughter of Pedro II) is "Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century" Another well known biography is "Isabel Orleans-Bragança: the Brazilian princess who freed the slaves". Although a biography of Isabel, it is in fact a history of the House of Braganza since João IV became King in 1640. It has a chapter devoted to João VI. Both biographies use "João VI". You could say that I'm being selective, it's true. But I'm talking about historians who are actually dealing with the subject. Why I don't bother talking about his on the move discussion? Because it wouldn't matter. They want names in English. When I say that Google books show 53,000 results for João VI, they say that I got ghost results. Really? Because when I click on page 1 of the search and go all the way to the last page, which is 51, I still get João VI. For John VI, we get 40,700 results. They don't care. Still, this Wikipedia's rule for Kings' names still makes no sense. --Lecen (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
First, it was a figure of speech. It doesn't mean that someone is my enemy. As I said, the Wikipolicy of placing names of kings in English is the "true enemy". It's quite obvious that I don't plan to start a war against Wikipedia. Just a figure of speech. Second, those were comments on another user's talk page, not directly to someone to everyone else see such as João VI's talk page. Third, I have a lot of issues with your behavior as "mediator" in this entire case, which I should and could make complaints about it. You ignored me for a long time, although I am the only editor who actually works on these articles and is a well known specialist on the subject. You opted to talk only with Prodego, SergeWoodzing and GoodDay, who, as far as I know, are editors who only bother to talk on any move request that involves names in English. They don't care about the article. You allowed a new move request to be created merely a few days after another was finished, even though the administrator who closed the other said that there was nothing wrong about it. Sorry, a new move request desguised as RfC that no one has cared about it. You allowed this new move request when an ongoing discussion a the Administrator's noticeboard was still open. You allowed while there is another open move request on a similar article (João V of Portugal). You said to two editors (this includes me) who are well known to collaborate on these articles that their votes would not be counted merely because we didn't say anything the article shouldn't be moved (we have good reasons after this and this). Many who voted for John VI haven't said anything useful, except to post a link to MoS's wikilink to Sovereign's name. You made no complaint about it. Lastly, I don't remember where you were when they were making xonophobic remarks (including on Jimbo Wales's talk page which they were canvansing too) nor when Walsariad said this to me when I tried to make a peaceful settlement (after all, there are William I, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor, as well as Peter III of Portugal and Pedro V of Portugal). You don't need to reply. --Lecen (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: See this to understand what kind of things we had to endure. Notice that GoodDay was there to protect him. --Lecen (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
...and notice Lecen wasn't there to protect him, obviously a conspiracy thing going on here ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Afif al-Bizri

I saw you deleted the edit summary for a vandal edit on Afif al-Bizri, and I was wondering whether that was necessary. AFAIK, this is only done in cases where it's a personal attack on an editor, a BLP violation or outing. I don't really mind one way or the other, I'm just wondering because it's the first time I see it on a proper article. Thanks! Yazan (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Please help reactivate my account

--User:Deepmath, B&@wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.35.132 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Please use Special:Emailuser/Georgewilliamherbert to contact the admin who blocked you. Prodego talk 18:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I lol'ed

I literally LOL'ed. Thanks for that. PatríciaR msg 12:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

UOPX

You know I hadn't seen [7] before and it definitely belongs in the article. Would you like to add it in? I'm not sure where it should go. JamaUtil (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A section dedicated to controversy, similar to other articles would likely be a good way to go about this. Prodego talk 18:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

UOPX

What I'm trying to say is please do add whatever material you like. That Chronicle article would be a great addition. JamaUtil (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please enjoy my incorporation of your new source. Please do let me know if there are any other sources floating out in bit-land. JamaUtil (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

MSU Interview

Dear Prodego,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Sincerely,


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Prodego, I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form. Thanks. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 21:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Talkback

Hello, Prodego. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 05:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wifione Message 05:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Documentation for gadget authors

I saw you had done some work on heavily-used gadgets. We're trying to start a library for gadget authors to use. Please check it out and post any questions or comments there. -- ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 02:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

Administrators Noticeboard post

Thank you very much for your interest.

Have I mentioned lately...

You are doing a fine job as an admin here. I am proud that there are wikipedians like you around. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BD, and you know I wouldn't be here without your help! :) Prodego talk 04:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Prodego a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 00:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Why thank you! I hadn't realized. Prodego talk 00:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Filter help

Hey Prodego. Do you think can help me with a filter? Elockid (Talk) 12:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

WP:RFPP

You have a request at RFPP regarding the Serbia article. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 16:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Request for clarification

Hi Prodego. I noticed that you closed the AFD on Suicide of Amanda Todd as no consensus [8] and noted in you closing note that "From a strict policy reading this article should be deleted...". To me I do not see why the article should be deleted. The event of the suicide is being reported by many reliable sources and to me seems to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. How does this not quality under Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion?

Note that I am not trying to badger you or accuse you of being wrong; I just do not understand. Thanks! meshach (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The majority of requirements to unambiguously demonstrate lasting notability (which is what is required) require significant time to show. Let's look at those requirements:
  1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance
  2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards
We cannot possibly judge those so soon after the fact.
Recentivism is a huge thing, in the moment we may feel this event clearly will have historical significance and clearly is widely covered. But what seems widely covered now may not seem so in a month, a year...
Without the benefit of time, estimating the impact of an event is impossible, and strictly speaking without an estimate of the impact we cannot say an event will meet the inclusion guidelines. Notability is not temporary and if an event truly is notable an article would be created for it later.
In practice Wikipedia is expected to have up to date factual information on big news stories. This is a very valuable role, but not the role of an encyclopedia, and so it tends to conflict with the policies. Relaxing those notability standards for current events does happen, and I even think is a good thing. So long as we clean out articles like this one if they do turn out to have no lasting notability no harm is done. Prodego talk 02:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
If through a policy point of view it should be deleted, and consensus is looking at the arguments and weighing them through the lens of policy, why should it not be deleted? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Because if the consensus is to ignore the letter of the policy, then you ignore the letter of the policy. Prodego talk 19:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Prodego. I did not know about Wikipedia:Recentism. Cheers, meshach (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swifty

I went ahead and changed my IP address and if you block this one I will change it again as it is bs that you blocked me to begin with and it should've been Caldorwards4 who should be blocked as he did not like my edits and falsely accuse me of the above. You had no right and will never block me from editing on Wikipedia, I AM NOT SWIFTY SO F*** YOU FOR BLOCKING ME! 184.58.17.119 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of if you own User:Swifty, you can't just resolve your disagreements by saying 'haha, I'm going to make you block me more than one time!' Prodego talk 04:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank You ("Edit Filter on 'Robert B. Bell'")

Thank you for your response on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents on "Edit Filter on 'Robert B. Bell.'" You're the only one who has given me an actual answer and options to my queries about the false positives. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: And, I would, add, "with courtesy." 68.50.128.91 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Username block question

I'm curious why you blocked this editor after I had vanished them. As far as I can see, they didn't edit after vanished them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw the name in a diff and blocked, I didn't realized they had been renamed to it. Shouldn't matter if they are vanished anyway. Prodego talk 04:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but we shouldn't be blocking vanished editors unless they continue editing after vanishing (and generally not even then, as we just unvanish them). If you see it again, please review the history behind it before blocking them, and only block them if there is a really good reason (just having a "Vanished user abc" username is not usually a good reason for blocking all by itself). Blocking also adds them to additional logs, which makes their vanishing less so. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I don't entirely recall, but I don't believe I saw the 'Vanished user' due to the large amount of garbage you added to the end. I'd suggest using less characters next time to make it more obvious. One or two more log entries shouldn't be too bad when we are already hundreds that already exist. If you want to unblock feel free. Prodego talk 07:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for everything tonight! I appreciate all your help and really enjoyed our conversation. Let's do it again sometime soon. :) MJ94 (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

Hi

Turkish Wikipedia has big problems too.78.183.218.42 (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've actually heard about that. However, I am an admin of the English Wikipedia, and I can't do anything about the Turkish Wikipedia. You can post about it on Jimbo's talk page if you want, but make a good post and don't just spam links. Prodego talk 05:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo not interested :/78.183.218.42 (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how much he is. I believe he is aware of the issues over there, but possibly he'd rather not get involved for fear that he would be seen as overriding the trwiki community. I don't know if he has seen the RfC on meta. Prodego talk 05:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No. This problem is there for months. But no one cares. Turkish Wikipedia's have dictators.78.183.218.42 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess part of the problem is that there really is no precedent for something like this. You'd have to show a clear consensus for some action, and clear consensus on what that action is. The RfC is a step in the right direction for that, but there really is no procedure to close it. One thing you might try doing is writing Jimbo an email (he usually responds to those), explaining the situation and asking what you should about it. He may be more likely to get involved if asked in that way. Prodego talk 05:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Enough talk and have complained of this page. The protest even opened the blog. What more can be done? 78.183.218.42 (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would try two things. One have a vote where trwiki users vote for or against taking a specific action (removing certain admins, or whatever needs to be done, in trwiki's opinion), and make sure that vote is well publicized on trwiki (as so much as is possible). Even people who can't speak Turkish can count votes :). A large percentage of editors (not new accounts or anything like that) would cause the stewards to take any action they request. If that doesn't work, fork. Prodego talk 06:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you for your support. I want to see you on the this page :)..78.183.50.132 (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I've left a post on meta:Stewards' noticeboard. Prodego talk 20:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

ANI thread

Hello, I noticed that the thread regarding the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page and other related pages has been removed from the ANI page. Did the admins ever come to a resolution? Thanks.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas

Lihaas has long-standing form in posting over-hasty and incompetent ITN/C nominations. He's been asked before, by many different users, to take more care and not seek to 'win' ITN/C. Competence is required. While I do my best to be patient, and to assume good faith, and especially not to bite the newbies, I don't see that I, and the rest of ITN/C, should have to be endlessly patient with an apparently experienced user who never becomes any more competent or careful himself. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm not talking about his nomination, I'm talking about your comments. If his nominations are consistently bad, you can still be polite, explain why in a few words, and move on. Prodego talk 22:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I could probably have been somewhat politer. Ask me again in a week when someone wasn't advocating my execution. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

ITN/C timer

Hi Prodego,

Thanks for updating the template. Please reset the timer.

Cheers,

--IP98 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Bot blocked message

Re your comment about whether my block was a reason for CrimsonBlue's retirement — see here. If he hadn't said that, I would never have noticed that he'd retired; my whole reason for wanting a your-bot-was-blocked template was because I feared that my note to him was ungracious and therefore wanted to know if we had a gracious template, since all our block templates are meant for more-or-less bad faith editing, not misbehaving bots. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If the bot didn't edit in 2 days, I wouldn't have blocked. In fact, CrimsonBlue had asked me to block a bot which was not operating properly a few days prior, but I declined because it hadn't edited in 4 hours. I do not think the tone of the message would be a major factor, but I do think custom block reasons are always superior to a template when dealing with a long term editor. Prodego talk 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I did it again... sort of

Okay so, {{AFC submission}} instructs AfC reviewers to move pages to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation if listed with the template. Which I did. I then reviewed and accepted the article submission and moved it over to the article main space. It took with it the entire edit history of the sandbox including unrelated edits as far back as 2010.

Would you be able to split the edit history of the Automotive industry in Thailand at this edit and put everything before back into the sandbox history? I'm not even sure if its possible, but you fixed it the last time ;). Mkdwtalk 07:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness

Thanks for fixing the talk page move; I'm not sure what went wrong there and I did mean to move it. Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Slow-moving edit wars are the best!

I've restored the previous version of {{help me-helped}}; as it seems more people are against substitution (at least at this point), I removed the commented out sections and simplified the code. Just thought I'd let you know. No rougeness intended. m.o.p 16:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

GarnetAndBlack and ban

You asked us to come to you if there were any problems, so here I am. My understanding is that we are forbidden from making changes to respective team/university related pages for 6 months. A look at GarnetAndBlack's activity shows this hasn't been the case. For example, [9]. Here, we have a POV edit since the University of South Carolina is not the state's flagship university ("flagship" would mean the state's best, which is highly subjective to opinion). There was also an edit-warring incident on a Clemson-related site: [10]. All of this is post-ban.

I have not engaged in discussion with him about this due to the regulations of the 6-month ban. However, a reminder may be in order.

Thanks, and have a great weekend.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Guess you might want to direct Les to this[11], or perhaps not. Also, my edits at the Clemson men's basketball article are maintaining WP:NFCC #1, which an anonymous IP editor decided to violate over and over, therefore there is no edit-warring taking place in this instance. Quite disappointing that Les chooses not to assume good faith here (or assist in upholding policy), I thought that was a key part of moving forward. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Please understand that due to the restrictions of the interaction ban, I must decline to respond or engage in discussion.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Prodego. You have new messages at Rutebega's talk page.
Message added 14:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Rutebega (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Notice of WP:AN discussion

Hello Prodego, this is notification of a WP:AN discussion regarding an editor you have dealt with. The thread is: WP:AN#Community ban for BLP-violating, sock-hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan. Appreciate your input, thanks! Zad68 18:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

File source problem with File:Vector a icon.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Vector a icon.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Carolinas, Clemson University, and User ban

I was reading wikipedia articles tonight while sandboxing some sections in Word. I noticed that a ban was placed on User:GarnetAndBlack pertaining to certain college / university pages, namely Clemson University in South Carolina. After reading several page histories, I am suprised this hadn't happened sooner, given the amount of deleted and suppressed content I found through edit-warring and puppetry. I couldn't find any positive edits made by this user involving content. I have been reviewing some of the pages, and am in the process of compiling and re-editing some of the content that was removed, and would like to re-write and add some historical content to the articles. Would you be willing to take a look at some of it; it may take some time for me to get it all done. Thanks. W.T.Diane (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm smelling sockpuppet all over this "new" editor to Wikipedia. First day here and you're already an expert on my posting history and canvassing editors in some sort of campaign against me? Not an auspicious beginning. (Is that you, Les?) GarnetAndBlack (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

127.0.0.1

Hi Prodego, Unforgettableid came in #wikipedia-en today explaining that he had a weird proxy setup in which his xff was set to 127.0.0.1, and your block was blocking him. Since your block was just a test, I disabled the autoblock so he is able to edit. I hope I didn't interrupt any tests. Maybe in the future it would be better to use test.wikipedia.org, so we don't accidentally block other editors. ;-) Legoktm (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I run DansGuardian on my personal PC. Dansguardian isn't a complete proxy. It can't talk to web servers: it can only talk to other proxies. So I must also run Squid on my personal PC. I think Squid was setting my X-Forwarded-For to 127.0.0.1. I wonder if you could please unblock 127.0.0.1 altogether? You could use an unblock reason like this: One Wikipedian is behind two proxy servers on one machine: [[DansGuardian]] and Squid. This block was affecting him. He suspects that one proxy has been adding "X-Forwarded-For: 127.0.0.1" headers. Unblocking. Thank you! —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Removed protection

I have no interest in wheel warring, so I thought I could go straight to you here. Can you restore the protection on Xbox One. If you look through the history, there has been all sorts of terrible edits, from hoax games to vandalism level "reception" sections. For a bit, literally every time I refreshed, there was another hoax game listed. If anything needs protections, it would be this. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it again. The hoax comments continue, not to mention people keep on adding offensive reception sections (which inexplicably reference autism distastefully, of all things.) Additionally, several people have been requesting protection. If you still oppose, please discuss at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Xbox_One#Semi-protect. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Hi

Hi Prodego. Sorry for the mix up at AN. I didn't realise this had already been chewed over. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Diogotome

Possibly a sock, definitely a SPA. But I don't see an NPA there (indeed, I agree with what they said, even if they phrased it bluntly...) Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown - are you thinking what I'm thinking? --Rschen7754 00:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about turning off the computer and getting romantic with my wife, so I'm gonna go with "no" here ;-) There are a couple of names that come to mind but not completely sure, who did you have in mind? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed

You're right, rollback for me is still a little bit away. I think 3-5 more weeks of 250-500 good edits that don't receive corrections or warnings will do it. Thoughts? WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 10:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 23:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Time and edits are meaningless. Whenever you can correctly use rollback (not hard), and correctly respond when you make mistakes (more difficult), you can have it. Prodego talk 23:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure that your final comment here was entirely appropriate - not to mention the fact that you apparently edited a closed discussion. NAC are one of the reasons why WT has been explicitly asked not to meddle in adminy areas. That said, I wouldn't have minded in the least if you had addressed the issue to me personally on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

hat collecting

What do you mean by hat collecting please? --JetBlast (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:HATSHOP.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Well you are wrong, I am not in the process of gaining any rights. I wouldn't be an admin if I was paid to do it. regards --JetBlast (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

OrangesRYellow

You've blocked him for violating 3RR on Anjem Choudary. I can't believe I'm trying to save his bacon but I think you've made a mistake. Oranges was merely restoring something that appears to have been deleted improperly and did so only 3 times. And manofwar0 and the IP 82.132 are obviously the same person. Something to think about. --regentspark (comment) 20:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh, yea let me take another look at that. Prodego talk 20:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
RegentsPark, it looks to me like there was a somewhat active discussion discussion about it on the talk page, with no clear consensus, and that the IP/Manofwar (both also blocked) and OrangesRYellow were revert warring on the article over the passage, with a couple additional reverts of the IP (no more than 1 per editor). Is there additional discussion somewhere that I am missing? Prodego talk 20:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You're right about the talk page discussion (I should have looked there). Still, he hasn't actually violated 3RR and it does seem to me that manofwar is agreeing with himself before removing the information :) . It's up to you though. --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Given the heat I am taking myself, I would not dare to call it "wrong", but kindly reconsider your stance. I think it is overly strict. That article is a magnate for POV-wars. Like the other admin said, the IP and manofwar (←not to mention a pugnacious choice of username) are obviously the same person. From what I see he was dragged into that war, albeit he could have handled it with more tact. Please unblock him. I guarantee you, if you ask him not to do that again and unblock him, it will be far more effective. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Thank you for giving me reviewer, however, I have no idea what that group entails. Any advice? Ishdarian 23:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't do a whole lot, but it can be useful in that it means your edits to pages which are using pending changes do not need to be patrolled before being accepted in the live version of the page. Additionally, you could, if you desire, review other editors changes to such pages and approve them. WP:REVIEWER has more. Prodego talk 23:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks! :) Ishdarian 23:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness

Hi there Prodego! Just wanted to let you know that I rejected the last IP change made to the article, and asked for an edit summary to explain the connection with the wikilinked page. Regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just hit the little button to make the notice go away mostly. Prodego talk 03:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

A barnstar for you.

The Civility Barnstar
I admire the civility and thoughtfulness with which you handle your administrative work. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you BDA! I hope all is well with you? Prodego talk 16:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A request

Hi Prodego. I see that you have blocked User:Manofwar0. I do not think it is proper that a sock be allowed to get a block on legit users. By definition, socks should not be allowed any activity on Wikipedia, but the sock has been able to blemish my pristine block log. The sock is going to see it as a victory and it is wholly inappropriate that socks be allowed to feel gratified/rewarded in this manner. I would appreciate it if you could overturn my block and note that it was due to some confusion etc. regarding some complaint by a sock. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason, it seems that you may not want to accept my request, while at the same time may not like to deny it either. If that be the case, I think it is on me to end the dilemma by withdrawing my request. I am sorry if I have caused you any trouble. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
OrangesRyellow: Haven't seen it until now, I am a bit inactive lately. Even with sockpuppets, you should be edit warring. It's true that the post by the sock to the 3RR is what drew my attention to that page, but if I had happened to come across the page for another reason the outcome would be the same. I don't think the circumstances of why I opened the page history should dictate the actions I take. Prodego talk 16:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Will try to internalize what you have said. I understand that you are doing some good work for the project and appreciate it very much. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

wikipedialogs.com

thank you for trying to help me the other day. risker has not emailed me, so i presume she and the committee are uninterested. i appreciate your effort, though. this ip is highly dynamic, so a reply to my talk page will not be seen. you do have my email though, and i will get in touch with my colleague to remove the accidental publishing of your /msg with them. 174.141.213.44 (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not yet seen Risker to talk to her yet. Be patient. Prodego talk 16:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
lol ok 172.56.14.251 (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Red Hat

Simply, to keep the article focused on the core subject during the deletion debate. Explained more fully at the AfD page; you may wish to consider voting there. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not really how page protection should be used. Prodego talk 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
That's entirely true. However, should all contributors be allowed to make improvements, the article would be reverted to 200kB again - and as you'll see from the article history, a number of contributors have wasted previous time trying to cut the article down to relevant data, which has then be reverted. I do not wish this to have to happen again. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Have you considered voting one way or the other on the AfD? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
After wasting mine and everybody else's time with your bikeshedding over the page protection, are you actually going to be helpful and give your views on the deletion debate one way or another? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe my contribution as an uninvolved admin is more valuable than becoming involved by presenting an opinion on the AfD. Prodego talk 21:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Since you had administrative activity related to one of the socks named here, I thought I'd bring your attention to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom. Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Toddst1, I was aware of the link, but it is good to have it written on wiki. Prodego talk 20:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Makis Keravnos

I was going to deleteMakis Keravnos, but I could see some work went into the article, so I wanted to leave a note at the author's page. I see you are on top of it, so I'll leave it to you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick - I figure we should give him 48 hours or so to respond, since it can be hard to tell who copied whom sometimes, and he would be the one to know! Thanks for waiting. Prodego talk 14:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/139

Hi this abuse filter [12] keeps saying my edits are identified as unconstructive on Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox please help because I am editing under an ip and I am not vandalising it making some changes to the look but not changing the content 90.218.219.230 (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded on user talk. Prodego talk

Filter

Your filter's misbehaving. I recommend a firm spanking. —Dark 08:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dark - I didn't actually write that filter, I was just the last to modify it, but I've modified it so it will only trigger in mainspace. Prodego talk 15:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

NAC closure

since you have just done the business at Kharb, could you please take a look at Kajala also - identical NAC AfD situation. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Prodego talk 15:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Ta. You were on the ball there - I wasn't expecting things to happen so quickly. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Again (to the administrator this time), please note that the auto-signature for IPs does automatically link to [the IP talk] page -- and is allowed for on WP:SIG -- so apparently the talk page is not hard to find at all. That negates the entire point of the objection. (See earlier discussion on the talk page where you left your note.) Besides, why would I want to usurp a member who identifies themself as User:Tenebris? They are a member. I am an *IP*. The other page is an *IP's* talk page. To insist otherwise is to insist that I must become a member and no longer an IP. You might take into account that signing myself Tenebris using your shortcut is actually more confusing re which person is which, because that way you cannot see the difference without mousing over it. I thought the entire point was clarity? Please also note that (given the existence of the autolink), other administrators have indicated that the five tildes are all that is needed, for clarity in dating. (Incidentally, interesting that neither of you seemed to find the need to link me -- an IP -- into your discussion elsewhere, using the talk page you both knew about.) - Tenebris 18:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.201.5 (talk) (edited for clarification - replaced "this page" with "[the IP talk] page" - Tenebris 14:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note -- I am probably going to be offline for most of next week. Will I come back once again to the result of discussions done behind my back? - Tenebris 14:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Scott Martin image

Hi Prodego, I see you speedily closed the deletion discussion on File:Scott Martin.png. As you know, the background is that the image was apparently donated to User:Scott Martin by an anonymous third party. However, there is no record that the author has freely licenced it or released it into the public domain. As Scott says, "no documentation of any kind exists for this image. The only person on this project who witnessed its author place it into the public domain was me. Either we accept my statement, on the public record, as an administrator, that this file is in the public domain, which is as close to proof as anyone will ever get, or somebody has to call me a liar." In essence, Scott is arguing that his word as an administrator should supersede the explicit requirement of Wikipedia:Image use policy#Copyright and licensing that the uploader must be able to prove that any uploaded image is properly licensed. The original deletion request was speedily closed on the basis that assuming good faith is sufficient.

I'm certainly not doubting Scott's word, but the upload clearly does not meet the non-negotiable requirements to verifiably document its authorship and licensing. Scott's comments in the discussion do not give me a great deal of confidence that he understands the image licensing policy. If he was unable to verifiably document the licensing, then the image probably should not have been uploaded in the first place. I don't see anything in policy that suggests that "good faith" can be used as a substitute for proper licensing, and certainly Scott's status as an admin should not immunise him from image licensing requirements. I think it was wrong to speedily close the deletion discussion and I am thinking of raising it at DRV, but I thought I would highlight the issues here first so that you have an opportunity to reconsider and perhaps explain. Prioryman (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You might like to spend some time considering WP:NOTBURO. When you've done that, consider also that the Wikimedia Commons, which has even stricter rules than us, recently kept an image on the basis of a statement of a verbal assignation of copyright over twenty years ago. — Scott • talk 15:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You might also consider taking a look at the discussion of File:Centpacrr.jpg in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 3, and consider that SchuminWeb's punitive attack on that image was one of the things that helped him on his way out the door. The project has enough issues with image deletion without people clogging the system with questionable and suspiciously retaliatory nominations. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
How is it "retaliatory" to ask someone to fulfil the basic requirements for uploading an image? Is Scott in some kind of special privileged category to which the rules don't apply? Prioryman (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Because your motives are abundantly clear, just as Kiuper's were clear regarding his harassment of Fae. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman I disagree with your designation of Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements as "non-negotiable requirements". There are no such thing on Wikipedia. We must consider whether asking Scott to remove an image he knows is public domain advances to goal of the image use policy - which is primarily to prevent copyright infringement. Many public domain works do not have an easily identifiable source, meaning that having an unclear source is not unusual. As always responsibility for determining that image licensing complies with Wikipedia falls upon the uploader, and so taking Scott's word on it is no different than the case with any other file uploade. I am always very suspicious of policy arguments that create an incentive for editors to lie, (or subvert the process via the reupload to Flickr process I mentioned) and that would clearly be the case here.

So to be clear: if Scott Martin was explicitly told that the images would be PD, then he can upload it as such. If he was not, then he cannot. Responsibility for license correctness lies with him, as it would with any file upload. Creator attribution is a requirement intended to supplement this, and may be a legal requirement for some licenses. However in certain cases this is not possible and if not legally required we need to consider the justification for it, and whether it is really needed. It may also be worth considering how this image is used, and the implicit intentions of the creator for background information, but it that is not needed to justify the use. Prodego talk 21:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks so much! Melsinc (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR

Sorry, but once INeverCry started yanking on the wheel, it seems like the only path. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#INeverCry—Kww(talk) 00:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I'll hold off on leaving a statement for now. Prodego talk 00:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi Prodego, in case you aren't aware INeverCry requested that their admin rights be removed then Kww withdrew the case request. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

I just wanted to say that, having examined the course of events, I agree with this remark; what you did in restoring the block was classic wheel-warring and you should consider yourself lucky to still have your bit if you don't lose it. I also notice an error of fact in what you wrote there; Eric's one-month block was not imposed after a noticeboard discussion, it was imposed unilaterally by Fram (talk · contribs) and then the noticeboard discussion about it was rendered moot when Scottywong (talk · contribs) extended it to indefinite (I would argue in bad faith but maybe not). Could I ask you to please check carefully that you have the facts correct before doing any more "rouge adminning" like this? Thanks, --John (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Euclidthalis

With regards to User_talk:Euclidthalis#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Makis_Keravnos_2, it appears as though this editor does not understand copyright rules. This [13] was a wholesale copy of [14]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Main page talk edit

Hi, this edit [15] took out other comments, please have a look. Thanks. Stephen 03:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I did that. It looks like David Levy fixed it though. Thanks for letting me know! Prodego talk 03:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Shared IP address block

Hi, I was the one who put the notice about the shared IP address block. Lulaq (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lulaq! I see you were able to leave a comment - I assume you aren't using that connection right now? You should now be able to edit using that connection while logged in. Let me know if you have any trouble. Cheers, Prodego talk 00:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Filucz2004

Per your message on their talk page, they have continued with their edits to infoboxes, and I just thought I'd make you aware of it. livelikemusic my talk page! 01:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Filucz2004

He's returned under a new account. See the details here. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Busy?

You havent edited lately, Im just curious if you still log on to read Wikipedia. —Soap— 18:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Mail

Hi. Doesn't seem like you are still editing. But if so, have sent you an email. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Euryalus I've sent you a response, Prodego talk 05:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

File:Vector a icon.svg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vector a icon.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Please protect the article, GoAnimate, fully over time.

as a request from anonymous user of Wikipedia. Please tell admins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoAnimate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.86.65 (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Thank you

For being vigilant in your mission to prevent people from laughing. We wouldn't want anyone to forget how serious this place is and how important you all are. In glumness and constipation, I remain your faithful editor. Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Jim Sterling - Reasoning for 9 months worth of edits being deleted

I have to ask, by what rationale did you think reverting 9 months of edits on this page was the correct course of action?
I myself was an admin of the Minecraft Wiki for many years. It is the most popular gaming wiki that exists. Though inactive, I am still listed in the event I am needed urgently. But I cannot fathom how your actions of removing 9 months of edits from an article are justified. I am completely shocked that an administrator thinks this is the sane course of action. If I had ever tried that, I would have been demoted and permanently banned on the spot. I would have been laughed out of my position.
and over what? a section on Digital Homicide, who have been very notable in his career. A career of a game journalist, which is rarely paraded around IGN, CNN or any other sources the wiki would accept. And that means nine months of edits can be deleted, no problem?
I am left aghast that this is the course of action you deemed appropriate. Words simply cannot justify how shocked I feel. I knew Wikipedia was bureaucratic, but to the degree where 9 months can be discarded, I cannot comprehend how this is an acceptable action on your part.--Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

So how long are you going to whine about this for? Whatever happened to "I'm not even going to argue on this"? Sure sounds like a lot of arguing to me. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted here as part of clpo13's thoughts, in the event that the admin may not see my message on the board.
I am genuinely shocked this could happen. I can't care less about the page any more. Any drive I have to improve it was deleted along with those edits. This is purely on an administrative basis that I ask just why this action was correct. This no longer has anything to do with the Jim Sterling page, and more to do with how the hell the action of deleting just under a year's worth of edits can ever be justified. I will no longer argue for the Jim page because it is beyond reasonable saving. to fix it to the strictest letter of Wikipedia's bureaucratic standards is impossible at this point.
This is now purely about the actions, rather than the page. The justification of deleting such a massive chunk of edits, and how that could ever be seen as the correct course of action, under any admin guidebook. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A good brownie for you!

A brownie is an amazing food and is one of the best dessert i think! Freelife45 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A good kitten is worth living for! Have a kitten they give you love like other nice animals! The kittens are one of the smartest animals in the world unlike dogs and turtles!

Freelife45 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! <3

Hello Prodego, LBHS Cheerleader 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!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for giving me a chance. You don't have to worry about me getting into trouble, I'm done doing that. Trouble is for immature people. LBHS Cheerleader (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

ANI ITN TRM

Hi Prodego,

Respectfully, I don't believe this ANI has been open long enough to solicit adequate feedback, and I humbly request that you re-open it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.239.114 (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

...Or if you feel closing is appropriate, a better summary than "going nowhere fast" would be appreciated. If you believe the dispute has been resolved as best as possible, please summarize what that resolution is, because it's unclear to me. Thanks. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

68.115.239.114 – That thread seems to have become the argument, rather than an attempt to resolve an argument. I think that it is in the best interests of everyone, yourself included, to close it. What more would you like to accomplish with it? Prodego talk 00:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, if the consensus is that calling me "self-obsessed" is not a personal attack, or if "I had hoped that some of you would have some sense and some courage but right now, there's nothing there at all." is not a (blanket) personal attack, and if experienced editors get a "pass", then obviously the next thing to do is to open an RFC at WP:NPA so that the expectations can be adjusted so that this sort of unremitting low-level hostility is knowingly accepted. If you could just summarize what the consensus was from the ANI, that would help. Also, you may have noticed an un-involved editor added "TRM's comments don't seem very civil and almost seem designed to inflame a sensitive situation and cause offense. They certainly don't seem to be aimed at improving the encyclopedia" which is really the crux of the problem, so dismissing the ANI as "not going anywhere" doesn't address that. FWIW I believe you're acting in good faith, I just don't know what to do when someone literally makes comments like " Now then, doing nothing about slaughtered children in schools time after time is tantamount to encouraging it to continue." which inflame emotions and derail discussions. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you it isn't very nice, and that both yourself, and The Rambling Man should know better than to get in to unconstuctive arguments about what actions should be taken regarding gun violence. Those sorts of arguments neither benefit, nor have a place on Wikipedia. I'm also quite sure both of you know that already. We can avoid heated arguments, personal attacks, and general nastiness by just not having off topic political discussion. There are plenty of forums to go to if you want to have that debate. So we closed that discussion on ITN and closed the discussion at ANI.
I'm not sure what other actions to take here, ANI doesn't hand out punishments, it resolves problems. And I think we've done that here. If not, we can have a new thread. Prodego talk 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, this has nothing to do with the subject matter. I made a good faith comment challenging the validity of some data, and in return I got accused of encouraging mass shootings. I don't see how we can "both be wrong here". I'm not asking you or any administrator to hand out "punishment". Is it, or is it not a personal attack when TRM calls me "self-obsessed"? If it is, then what? And if not, then WP:NPA is wrong and needs to be amended. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
If WP:NPA doesn't apply, then what about WP:CIVIL? Or is it a case of WP:NOPROBLEM. What if I had commented "Don't keep up this vicious, prejudiced, anti-Americanism or whatever it is. But keep up the good work by ignoring it, or even encouraging it!". Would that be a personal attack? I'm looking for advice here, not a ruling. What are people supposed to do when confronted with those kinds of comments? What are people supposed to do when their good faith contributions met with that kind of hostility? --01:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.239.114 (talk)
You challenged data that was being used to support a purely political argument that shouldn't have been occurring anyway. The main policy that applies here is WP:NOT#FORUM – "'Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.
As for advice for what to do if you encounter comments you consider might be personal attacks, what you should do is:
  • WP:AGF – assume good faith, the comment may not have been intended to be an attack.
  • Comment on content, not on contributors. Avoid engaging in such discussion yourself.
  • Remain WP:COOL, and do not angrily engage the user. You can remind them to be polite, but if that doesn't work, then:
  • Involve a third party mediator to cool things down, informally or through ANI. Often someone else in the discussion will just do this spontaneously.
We have cooled this discussion down by stopping it. That is not always the appropriate course of action, but in this case, I think it is. Prodego talk 02:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up question, if I am looking for a 3rd party, where should I go? WP:3O said "not us" and ANI feels a little too formal. RFC feels more content dispute related. Any suggestions? --68.115.239.114 (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no universal answer to this. Often it will just happen. If you find yourself subject to repeated attacks, and no one steps in to help, either a) you may be misinterpreting the comments, and other users don't see them as personal attacks, or b) other editors haven't seen the comments. At that point AN/I is the right place to go. Prodego talk 04:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to comment that this is not the first time TRM has been hostile. The common theme is that a perceived fault in another justifies uncivil comments. I personally think it is unbecoming of an administrator and would have preferred if the most recent thread and past threads at ANI got the attention they deserved rather than being quickly closed.
That being said I have closed many an ANI thread I saw as petty without necessarily being privy to the entire history. I am not criticising your close, rather I trying to make you mindful of a possible pattern should another variation of this appear at ANI in the future. HighInBC 04:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@HighInBC: I appreciate the feedback (honestly). I do agree that those comments were less than civil. Perhaps I am overly cynical, but snipping off that entire off-topic conversation was going to be the most we can do at ANI. This is the space that the user conduct RFC (used to) fill. I'm not familiar with the full backstory, but if you think action up to sanctions or blocking is needed, an ANI post to look at the full picture may be in order? Prodego talk 04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You are one of the few names that I remember from day one here and I have a lot of respect for you. I often disagree with people I respect and I disagree with closing a discussion as "Going nowhere fast" when it was less than 3 hours in when a lot of people are sleeping. I think this IP had a different opinion on a divisive issue and was treated like crap by an administrator here and that it was dismissed.
Most complaints about bad admin behaviour behaviour are frivolous and it can make it hard to see when it is legit. But if we don't hold each other to the standards the community has laid out for us then we will be policed from above. I honestly think a lot of desysopings could be avoided if the community were more willing to talk frankly about these things.
As far as sanctions go I don't intend to take any measure as drastic as filing my own thread at ANI before concluding that it is an actionable issue and taking the step of directly pleading for change to TRM first. I do think that if yet another issue comes about in the future we should take the time to talk about it.
All this being said I am not one of those persons that sees sinister motives everywhere. I have surely made nearly identical closes in the past. I think it all comes down to drama vs working through things. We avoid topics that will have high drama but the side effect is that the same issue comes right back later. I hope I am wrong and we never have to worry about something like this again. HighInBC 04:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
While I appreciate all this analysis, I'm afraid I can't be held responsible for users who deliberately reinterpret things to suit themselves. For what it's worth, the IP has since gone on to make no fewer than three pointed edits, including a personal attack on me, and frankly I couldn't care less. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For your tireless work keeping Wikipedia tidy. Merry Christmas! Dan Koehl (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: thanks! Prodego talk 04:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock on 1.136.96.0/23

Heya, what's with this rangeblock? I don't see any bad edits recently (I didn't go much further back than a week.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Heyo Jpgordon. That one was targeted at edits on a bunch of discography pages, (e.g. Will Smith discography). Hopefully I didn't derp up the range, I've been having issues with the range contribs tool. Prodego talk 04:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, subtle change vandalism? But this is a quite used range -- a few crap accounts, but a whole lot of perfectly acceptable logged-in and non-logged-in edits. Anon-only should take care of it, which I see you just did. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I did knock out a couple of dumbass accounts in the process, though. User:Bloodhound Gang Vanilla Ice and User:Christine McVie Fleetwood Mac. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
That vandalism has been coming up over and over on AIV, on multiple IPs and accounts. This was the only contiguous range. I usually check range contribs to avoid collateral damage (at least for non-logged in accounts), but it's possible I was having issues with the tool and blocked it anyway since it is only a /23. I saw the unblock request from a user a few minutes ago, and swapped it to anon only. If you see too much collateral damage please go ahead and unblock it. It isn't sufficient to stop that vandalism anyway. Thanks! Prodego talk 05:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that request is what caught my attention. Let's see if we get any anon complaints. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • BTW just read your 3RRNO reply - Thank you for being extremely lenient in not blocking me (Looking at it now I certainly could've done things much differently but WP's a learning curve for everyone (myself included) but anyway all in the past, Just wanted to pop by to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Portuguese profanity

I understand and appreciate your position expressed here concerning the contribution reproduced below. However, sound the proposed word out and it's quite obviously not Portuguese. Additionally, the "word" exists nowhere on the Internet, which should be a clue.

"'Dafuniga' is an offensive word for a Negro. People use this word to mean that they are racist against the Negro."

Every other edit by this user has been vandalism (including a hoax page). General Ization Talk 20:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Templates for AIV

You probably already know this, but because you are manually archiving requests at WP:AIV, I'll tell you. I apologize if you already know this. There are templates for AIV. For example, if you do {{AIV|nesw}}, it will print

No edits since being warned. Re-report if this user continues vandalising or spamming after sufficient warnings.

In a few hours or so (I have no idea), then it will be automatically archived. There's a script at User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper.js to help you perform that. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I find it easier to manually clear the page so that there aren't multiple old reports hanging around, and it is more clear which reports need attention. Prodego talk 01:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearing recent warnings without explanation

Could you please explain why you cleared recent warnings and block notices on the IP talk page? You've left no WP:ES and, as far as I am aware, admins aren't above WP:TPNO. If there is a rationale for such a move, it would be courteous to leave some form of explanation as to why this is an appropriate action. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I certainly did leave an edit summary, it says "Clear, add welcome", I suggest you check again. In this case I blanked the talk page because the contributions suggest that a new editor is using this IP address to make constructive edits, and that the recent warnings were inadvertent. I left them a welcome template, we wouldn't want to scare off a new editor with excessive warnings. Although the most recent warnings appear to be in error, although I did not choose to contact the editors who left them, since they seemed to be trivially incorrect. If you'd prefer that's something we could do. Prodego talk 01:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I found the ES to be self explanatory in terms of what you'd done, but not indicative of why you'd chosen to do so. Personally, I have no actual objections, but I'm convinced that the pattern demonstrates it to be the same contributor who is, essentially, a little overly enthusiastic. I don't want to quash the contributor's enthusiasm so long as it doesn't become genuinely disruptive. If the others who've left warnings have no objections - and it's up to them to let you know whether they feel the IP editor has been OTT - I'm fine with just leaving the fresh welcome message. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Filter 742

The original target was edits like 86.131.23.182 (talk · contribs). From CU I know this is a java script, hence the high editing speed. I could not figure out a characteristic added line; the master is intelligent enough to tweak it when hitting the filter. Ironically the filter blocked some LTAs sitting on this range (maybe the same master, maybe not). Materialscientist (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Editing dispute at eBay

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Slightsmile reported by User:2600:100E:B12A:E8CD:C519:4540:A829:37CD (Result: Semi). I see your name is already on the article talk page, so if there are more admin actions you want to do, feel free. User:Mark Arsten's name is in the protection log also. I just needed to clear this report from WP:AN3 one way or the other. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:BlackJack

Just letting you know, User:BlackJack has come out of retirement. A few days ago you posted a warning on his talk page about personal attacks on me, but he is back into it, saying I have a "disgusting attitude", etc. StAnselm (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Prodego. Please see this diff by User:AssociateAffiliate (AA) which reports a bad faith action. Then, this reply which is out of order ("Consider this your warning") as AA did not breach BLP and replied politely but firmly. He was supported by User:Pldx1. The problem there was that I had been asked a reasonable question by another user about the source I had been given but, because I am a very busy person, I hadn't seen it let alone answered it. Instead of waiting patiently for a reasonable time, as is required by WP:NSPORTS, Anselm dived straight into the article and reverted the changes which the source had provided. Even if he is technically correct in his interpretation of BLP, his application of it is OTT and he uses it as a threat to other users (see my talk page as well). By reverting information, he has twice committed breaches of BLP himself in this same article.
What really is disgusting is this statement which includes: "Now, the fact that you now refer to a guide issued "about 2005" suggests that "Sri Lankan cricketers, 2015" is simply a made-up reference that you added to the article. Don't do that, please". What am I supposed to make of that? He is accusing me of bad faith. I am an editor of ten years' standing and one of the main contributors to WP:CRIC with a wide range of sources and contacts at my disposal. He is calling me a liar who fabricates material. What had happened was that my ACS contact and I got our wires crossed about a guide that was in fact published in 2005 and a proposed new one that is still a work in progress and may be published next year. A simple mistake between two well-intentioned people trying to improve an article.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who calls me a liar and accuses me of bad faith is a disgrace and should be blocked. His attitude is disgusting, as I have said. There is no excuse for his attitude towards either AssociateAffiliate or myself, or elsewhere to User:Bobo192.
I have resigned from the site but have returned temporarily to help out with a controversy over the cricket SNG. When that is sorted out, I shall depart. I will not stay on a site where someone who has a WP:POINT to prove can call me a liar, accuse me of fabricating information, act in bad faith and get away with it. Jack | talk page 14:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@BlackJack: @StAnselm: what is it you would like me to do here? I will say that it is a whole lot better to say "I believe adding this material violates the BLP policy because x,y,z" than "you are violating BLP, consider this a warning". There's also really no benefit to adding the adjective "disgusting" before "attitude" since it doesn't add anything anyway. WP:COOL solves all problems. Prodego talk 04:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
You are of course correct, Prodego, and I'm sorry that you have been inconvenienced. I will refrain from using, shall we say, expressive adjectives in future if I should react to provocation. As you say, the reasonable approach to an issue, whether it is BLP or reliability of a source or whatever, is to take the same line as another editor did in the Perera discussion when he requested clarification because he was unsure about the date of a source's publication. He asked a reasonable question so he was given a reasonable response and, furthermore, when it turned out that his doubt was justified because there had been a communication error, I acknowledged it and thanked him. That approach is a whole world away from, as you say, "you are violating BLP, consider this a warning".
Anyway, I will let the matter rest now and will return to editing as normal. I will begin by updating and renaming the Perera article because I believe that I have, in the meantime, been correctly informed about the ACS handbook which has the player's name and date of birth. If someone should eventually discover that I have been misinformed, then I will hold my hand up and amend the article accordingly as I would any article; as I have done if and when necessary for the last ten years. I have created several thousand articles on WP, all of them in good faith based on information at my disposal which I have reason to believe is valid and correct (or, at least, not invalid and not incorrect). If I have subsequently found that a source was in error, I have corrected the article. There have been times when I have challenged sources myself as I usually know the views of cricket experts and if they hold a particular source to be unreliable. That sort of doubt cannot in any way arise re the sources we are using for Perera: the ACS, CricketArchive (CA) and ESPNcricinfo (CI) are all reputable and informative sources that are widely used and are generally considered significant. Okay, CA and CI are mistaken with Perera because the player took part in two matches with a seven-year gap between them and they both think he is two different players, but the ACS evidence resolves that issue and can be used to enhance the article.
Thank you, Prodego. You are a good admin. You are very fair and you use common sense. WP:COOL is good advice. Well done. Jack | talk page 07:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The main thing I wanted, Prodego, was for BlackJack to stop his campaign of personal attacks. If he is promising to do this (and I think he is), then the matter is resolved. StAnselm (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision Deletion

Hi,

I recently ran across a revision deletion you made here. I don't believe that it meets the criteria for revision deletion. The comment is a veiled threat to sock at best and I wouldn't consider that to be a grossly inappropriate threat or attack. (Typically it's reserved for threats of harm and the such.) Would you have any objection to me reversing it? If I may have missed something, please let me know. Best, Mike V • Talk 18:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mike V: I believe this meets the criteria by being an attempt by a banned user to harass an editor (via mention notifications). I would prefer it be reviewed at WP:DR or WP:AN before reversing it, if you don't mind. Prodego talk 20:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, just letting you know that I've brought it to AN for additional input. Best, Mike V • Talk 22:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Edits and accounts

@Prodego: Hello again Prodego. Before I begin, I just want to apologize for using a different account to contact you (may be considered a block evasion...), as my old IP address was blocked for trying to remedy the previous situation. I completely understand that identifying myself is hard, so I have made a new account ("Akakoat" is "Taokaka" backwards) in order to verify myself as accurately as possible (I know its still not completely verifiable but it's the best that I can do unfortunately...) With that said, I would like to move forward with blocking Taokaka (talk) indefinitely (instead of 1 week) so I can start over with this account, as well as being able to maintain personal privacy regarding my past edits. Thank you for your time again. Akakoat (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Akakoat: alright, so please don't edit with this account (Akakoat) until the block on the previous account expires, since that would be evading the block. If you want to talk to me about either the block or accounts, you can either wait, or use Special:EmailUser/Prodego. We can deal with blocking the old account after the current block expires, ok? Prodego talk 04:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Emmerdale

I don't think you reviewed this situation that well. This addition to their talk page is not a template. This edit by Denisarona is not a template either. We both tried to explain why they shouldn't do what they were doing. Their response to both these was to blank their user page, again revert their edit on the article, and post a message on my talk page saying that they'd decided what was needed, and I should "not cause anymore problems".

I was perfectly willing to discuss, but not while the IP editor continued to force their addition back into the infobox. There may well be something to be said about modifying the template, but since this a template that is used in a great many articles, edit warring over it on one article isn't the way to get that done. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Editing dispute at eBay, part 2

I'm considering an indef block of this account, who seems to be a new incarnation of the IP edit warrior we both dealt with before.

You blocked one of his IPs on December 31 per this notice. The declined appeal of your block can still be seen at User talk:75.162.211.81. Please see my message to the user here. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


FALSE, ed. It is not "socking" to start an account if you were editing as an IP-only before. To foolishly suggest that it is would be like saying that once someone edits with an IP they "have no right to start an account." Also, you're trying to redefine "disruption" as "editing one article to match a WIKIPEDIA MOS and other articles that already follow that MOS." It's not "disruptive" to add something to an article to match what the MOS suggests! Plus, ed, disruptive escape orbit already agreed that having an older style mention didn't seem good in the LEAD. They're not disputing the one in the lead anyway, but the part that's NOT in the lead. Therefore, now that I put that NOT IN THE LEAD, what you're saying here doesn't even apply. So neither he nor you should be complaining.

Also, your point that prodego blocked me at the IP level holds no water because I waited until the block ENDED to create and then use my account. So if protecting the article from IP-only users stops only IP users from editing it, then there's nothing wrong with someone who has an account editing the article, especially if the editing does NOT go against consensus, the content of which you are obviously misunderstanding.

Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Abuse filters

Hi, because of an irritating AbuseFilter bug, we (Kaldari, MusikAnimal and I) are going to do an update next week that will affect some of your filters. We hope we'll fix all affected filters ourselves, but we're of course grateful if you want to help us. The issue is explained here; the current plan is here. In any case, we wanted you to be aware what's happening, and you're very welcome to help out of course. I'm sending you an email with more details.

(All filters look like they're inactive, by the way, so no need to worry.) /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Analytical Graphics (logo).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Analytical Graphics (logo).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Prodego. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Prodego/archive.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Prodego. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Question

Do you recall what bot flagged Special:AbuseFilter/168? Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

DatGuy - unfortunately I don't, it has been quite a while. I tried looking through the filter logs and various talk pages to see if I could find it, but I had no luck. Would have been nice if I had put it in my comment.
My recollection is that there was a bot monitoring the category of unblock requests looking for edits removing the category. If we need this filter again that could still be done via bot or via abusefilter. Back then we really had to limit the number and complexity of abuse filters due to performance, but that is probably not the case anymoret. First thought I have is that a category based approach (abusefilter or bot) might be more reliable than looking for the text. Could be wrong about that though. Prodego talk 01:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

David Auerbach prod.

Hiya, I've removed your prod for David_Auerbach as it appears to ineligible on the grounds of having been the subject of previous AfD. [16] which ended as No Consensus. Note that the deleted article that previously occupied this namespace and was deleted was for a different subject. To delete you'll need to start a 3rd AfD. Artw (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:~

Template:~ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Prodego. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/89&oldid=1168310145"