This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hey, can you confirm that you requested a subscription at accounts-en-l please? SQL Query me! 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Constitution of Belarus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Now yes???
MisterWiki humour talking! :-D - 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
-- MisterWiki humour talking! :-D - 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Prodego, I've altered the proposal to make it read < 90% to reflect my original intent. If this changes your opinion on the proposal, can you edit your response when you have a moment? Thanks, Avruch T 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Would it be possible to poke Daniel (hard) with regards to 1.38 (bugfix) release of VP? FYI (and his):
Cheers, Ale_Jrb talk 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the MainPageBG class attribute isn't used in any skin, and so is just taking up database space. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 03:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Maximillion Pegasus (
talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"My 'expertise' is to deal with anon. IP edits so there's no point of placing a warning" As you can see from my contribution, I primarily aim at IP vandals and revert them ASAP. In terms of placing warnings, I don't see a need to do it if it's a IP (as many people can share the same IP and the vandal message might get to the wrong person instead of the target) -- Cahk ( talk) 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Prodego a quick question can somebody else use your IP address i got a message saying that my ip vandalised the De La Salle College Waterford that wasn't me thanks i am usually logged on as burgoyne172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgoyne172 ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Prodego, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to
call me out. ~
Riana ⁂ 04:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Prodego. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai ( talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
re [1]: I don't see you have any business changing protection levels in my user space making reference to some policy proposal. If you really, really feel you need to become involved with the question of semi-protection in my user space, you might drop me a note, explaining what it is you want and why you think I am out of line. Or just try some kind of wikilike approach. As you may imagine, there are historical reasons for the semi-protection. I might add that I do not find this edit of yours particularly helpful. It is beyond me how you can argue anyone would have "certainly been justified" in blocking me. This is outrageous. Are you a proponent of some sort of bad-ass approach to Wikipedia? Resolve disputes by blocking anyone involved on general principle? Wikipedia does not work that way. Please do not bother to comment on a dispute unless you have familiarized with the background first. Which means you have to actually look at content. I see a frightening tendency among admins to think that Wikipedia can be "administered" without ever looking into questions of encyclopedic content. This is wrong. Wikipedia admins are editors trusted with a few additional buttons. If you cannot be bothered to look into the actual editing, you have no business intervening in disputes short of some very simple tasks such as blocking vandals and enforcing 3RR. thanks. dab (𒁳) 08:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I should be editing this more often. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings Caltrop ( talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, it says you deleted a page called City Union Mission. What are the reasons for deleting it? I was thinking of making it. Please answer at my talk page. Thanks! -- Writergirlrocks ( talk) 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I wrote this up, see: here. Thoughts? :)
Thanks! FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Pls help at Craig Breslow. Tx.-- Ethelh ( talk) 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Having read and considered your closing statement, I must confess that I remain altogether unsatisfied with your close. Most significantly, you observed that "[you] agree with the users below who bring up that this was not a simple CSD deletion, and likely should have gone through RfD" (correctly, IMHO, appreciating that, at the very least, there did not exist a consensus in the DRV discussion for the proposition that summary deletion was appropriate here, unless, I suppose, it should be clear that any listing would plainly result in deletion), but I don't see that you ought really to have gone any further than to determine for what procedural posture a consensus exists; an administrator, after all, acts only ministerially and non-discretionarily, viz., to carry out those actions for which a consensus exists, and I can't help but find that you went a bit afield in proceeding beyond the threshold question at which the community seems to think the inquiry (at least at DRV) ought to have stopped. Because our presumption with respect to articles and redirects, even those about living persons, is against deletion, "no consensus" closes at DRV ought to be understood as failing to sustain summary deletion. Although many construe the Bdj RfAr and BLP to the contrary, even the more restrictive theory does not control here, since a community discussion had already produced a consensus for the preservation of a redirect (that discussion did contemplate, at least a bit, whether a redirect was appropriate as an aid to readers); to find otherwise is to reverse our presumption relative to deletion, and if one apprehends a consensus for such a reversal in the DRV discussion, he/she must have powers of perception far beyond those of a mere mortal. I expect that many (most?) will commend you for being clueful and putting to rest an issue that is largely perceived as being more trouble than its worth, but I don't see that the community has ever once conclusively adopted the view that there exist some pages the preservation of which is a net negative on the project (that is, that whatever might be their value to readers, their impact on the project is so disruptive as to impede other work that is of greater value on the whole), and I honestly don't see how your close might be reconciled with the discussion, and how the ultimate result might be understood as anything other than the substitution by WJB of his (often very sound) judgment for an apparent judgment of the community, and a substitution of yours, your evident good faith notwithstanding, similarly. Joe 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this was addressed above, but again this comes down to a non consensus interpretation on the value of the redirect. Not only that, but according to the deletion policy and the norms of DRV, we've established far more than enough to warrant an RfD on this matter. Your role in closing DRVs is not to be a "tie breaker". The "value" of a redirect is decided in RfD, and we have no real policy or guideline regarding how to judge value, or how much value is required, for a redirect. Not only that, but one of the biggest issues that no one seemed to being up is off-wiki links. I have no doubt that thousands of them have been broken because of this situation. We can only track whatlinkshere internally, not externally, which is a something noted for RfD discussions.
If we were not considering Brandt's actions in this DRV, then why would you be endorsing a deletion based on his request, citing a disputed and confusing portion of BLP (and where BLP arguments are weak at best)?
I'd really rather not take this to ArbCom, but seeing so many Wikipedians that the community puts great trust in blatantly gaming the system, is far more concerning that the redirect itself. This deletion was done in spite of at least 18 other discussions regarding the matter. WJB and others didn't like the result, so they deleted it anyways. No matter how well intended the act is, it's wrong, and was well established in the DRV. This is why we have DRV. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I was not re-adding a contested prod, I was reverting vandalism. An IP had removed all tags and info and replaced it with "this is a great book". That was not contesting the prod, but I will respect your removal of it. Reywas92 Talk 20:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hey, can you confirm that you requested a subscription at accounts-en-l please? SQL Query me! 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Constitution of Belarus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Now yes???
MisterWiki humour talking! :-D - 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
-- MisterWiki humour talking! :-D - 02:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Prodego, I've altered the proposal to make it read < 90% to reflect my original intent. If this changes your opinion on the proposal, can you edit your response when you have a moment? Thanks, Avruch T 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
Would it be possible to poke Daniel (hard) with regards to 1.38 (bugfix) release of VP? FYI (and his):
Cheers, Ale_Jrb talk 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the MainPageBG class attribute isn't used in any skin, and so is just taking up database space. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 03:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Maximillion Pegasus (
talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/ Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"My 'expertise' is to deal with anon. IP edits so there's no point of placing a warning" As you can see from my contribution, I primarily aim at IP vandals and revert them ASAP. In terms of placing warnings, I don't see a need to do it if it's a IP (as many people can share the same IP and the vandal message might get to the wrong person instead of the target) -- Cahk ( talk) 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Prodego a quick question can somebody else use your IP address i got a message saying that my ip vandalised the De La Salle College Waterford that wasn't me thanks i am usually logged on as burgoyne172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgoyne172 ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Prodego, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to
call me out. ~
Riana ⁂ 04:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Prodego. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai ( talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
re [1]: I don't see you have any business changing protection levels in my user space making reference to some policy proposal. If you really, really feel you need to become involved with the question of semi-protection in my user space, you might drop me a note, explaining what it is you want and why you think I am out of line. Or just try some kind of wikilike approach. As you may imagine, there are historical reasons for the semi-protection. I might add that I do not find this edit of yours particularly helpful. It is beyond me how you can argue anyone would have "certainly been justified" in blocking me. This is outrageous. Are you a proponent of some sort of bad-ass approach to Wikipedia? Resolve disputes by blocking anyone involved on general principle? Wikipedia does not work that way. Please do not bother to comment on a dispute unless you have familiarized with the background first. Which means you have to actually look at content. I see a frightening tendency among admins to think that Wikipedia can be "administered" without ever looking into questions of encyclopedic content. This is wrong. Wikipedia admins are editors trusted with a few additional buttons. If you cannot be bothered to look into the actual editing, you have no business intervening in disputes short of some very simple tasks such as blocking vandals and enforcing 3RR. thanks. dab (𒁳) 08:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I should be editing this more often. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings Caltrop ( talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, it says you deleted a page called City Union Mission. What are the reasons for deleting it? I was thinking of making it. Please answer at my talk page. Thanks! -- Writergirlrocks ( talk) 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I wrote this up, see: here. Thoughts? :)
Thanks! FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Pls help at Craig Breslow. Tx.-- Ethelh ( talk) 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 07:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Having read and considered your closing statement, I must confess that I remain altogether unsatisfied with your close. Most significantly, you observed that "[you] agree with the users below who bring up that this was not a simple CSD deletion, and likely should have gone through RfD" (correctly, IMHO, appreciating that, at the very least, there did not exist a consensus in the DRV discussion for the proposition that summary deletion was appropriate here, unless, I suppose, it should be clear that any listing would plainly result in deletion), but I don't see that you ought really to have gone any further than to determine for what procedural posture a consensus exists; an administrator, after all, acts only ministerially and non-discretionarily, viz., to carry out those actions for which a consensus exists, and I can't help but find that you went a bit afield in proceeding beyond the threshold question at which the community seems to think the inquiry (at least at DRV) ought to have stopped. Because our presumption with respect to articles and redirects, even those about living persons, is against deletion, "no consensus" closes at DRV ought to be understood as failing to sustain summary deletion. Although many construe the Bdj RfAr and BLP to the contrary, even the more restrictive theory does not control here, since a community discussion had already produced a consensus for the preservation of a redirect (that discussion did contemplate, at least a bit, whether a redirect was appropriate as an aid to readers); to find otherwise is to reverse our presumption relative to deletion, and if one apprehends a consensus for such a reversal in the DRV discussion, he/she must have powers of perception far beyond those of a mere mortal. I expect that many (most?) will commend you for being clueful and putting to rest an issue that is largely perceived as being more trouble than its worth, but I don't see that the community has ever once conclusively adopted the view that there exist some pages the preservation of which is a net negative on the project (that is, that whatever might be their value to readers, their impact on the project is so disruptive as to impede other work that is of greater value on the whole), and I honestly don't see how your close might be reconciled with the discussion, and how the ultimate result might be understood as anything other than the substitution by WJB of his (often very sound) judgment for an apparent judgment of the community, and a substitution of yours, your evident good faith notwithstanding, similarly. Joe 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this was addressed above, but again this comes down to a non consensus interpretation on the value of the redirect. Not only that, but according to the deletion policy and the norms of DRV, we've established far more than enough to warrant an RfD on this matter. Your role in closing DRVs is not to be a "tie breaker". The "value" of a redirect is decided in RfD, and we have no real policy or guideline regarding how to judge value, or how much value is required, for a redirect. Not only that, but one of the biggest issues that no one seemed to being up is off-wiki links. I have no doubt that thousands of them have been broken because of this situation. We can only track whatlinkshere internally, not externally, which is a something noted for RfD discussions.
If we were not considering Brandt's actions in this DRV, then why would you be endorsing a deletion based on his request, citing a disputed and confusing portion of BLP (and where BLP arguments are weak at best)?
I'd really rather not take this to ArbCom, but seeing so many Wikipedians that the community puts great trust in blatantly gaming the system, is far more concerning that the redirect itself. This deletion was done in spite of at least 18 other discussions regarding the matter. WJB and others didn't like the result, so they deleted it anyways. No matter how well intended the act is, it's wrong, and was well established in the DRV. This is why we have DRV. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I was not re-adding a contested prod, I was reverting vandalism. An IP had removed all tags and info and replaced it with "this is a great book". That was not contesting the prod, but I will respect your removal of it. Reywas92 Talk 20:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)