This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hi, took a chance and nominated myself for adminship. Cheers.-- LAA Fan sign review 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
on my talk page :) +sj + 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if the default size is small or not; but your edit also undid the addition of a CSS class "autosigned". If you'd like the size to be small the right syntax is <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">...</span>
. See also
Mediawiki talk:Common.css. Your recent edit put that template out of sync with the other unsigned templates. — Carl (
CBM ·
talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, on this IP user's talk page, should it actually be fully protected? It's the talk page of an IP user, so shouldn't it be semi protected? Just wondering, thanks. (P.S. I really admire your "anti-grawp" work!) Schfifty Three 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For protecting Economic crisis of 2008 from vandalism. Bearian ( talk) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
I use Twinkle's adminscripts to speed up repetitive admin tasks; they simple save me button clicking. I have to start the script up every time, so it is not fully automated. In an RfAR, I'm not fully involved as I don't run automated adminbots; however, with over 100 K deletions made, a lot of them with scripts, I can't be completely uninvolved. Maxim ( ☎) 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to your questions: Yes and yes. And common practice regarding blocking adminbots is not nearly as clear as you seem to think it is. Especially if the bot has been running for awhile with no problems, blocking the bot is a much worse decision than leaving it alone. -- Cyde Weys 04:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do run admin bots (see my full list), currently the only one I have running is my FA protection bot which has been approved for a trial by the bag (although I do use some admin scripts such as one to revert Grawp). And also if you do go to arbcom can you please notify me -- Chris 10:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
When you said "Unlike all other unauthorized blocks, unauthorized admin bots are often ignored", I think you meant "Unlike all other unauthorized bots, unauthorized admin bots are often ignored". I didn't change it because I did see mention somewhere of bots that block and even a software abuse filter that can now block... (I seem to have lost that discussion, can you point me to it?). Carcharoth ( talk) 06:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 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) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
First, I would like to say that it was MZMcBride who added me. To answer your questions, I do not run it anymore. When I did run it, I was always present when it ran. X clamation point 02:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems no one has told you yet, but there was unanimous consensus on AN/I that your block was a bad one, and it was overturned. I left my opinion on the matter there. Kind regards, -- how do you turn this on 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to add a sidenote: if arbcom decides to accept this as an arbitration case, I will retain adminship until arbcom decides they can't take it from me. I am confident that my actions were the right thing to do, and I will defend them. Please, before telling me what I did wrong, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misza13/Archives/2008/09#Gra_wp_reverts. Prodego talk 01:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not see the above statement as an unambiguous request to have admin bits turned off and therefore decline to act at this time. I suggested in IRC to Prodego that a good nights sleep might be a very good idea before actually making such a request. We all do things that others view as mistakes, or even that we ourselves view as mistakes. That is not a reason in and of itself to give up. Prodego has done a lot of very good work here and I hope this works out to everyone's satisfaction. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The easy thing for me to say is that I support your block of Misza13 and oppose it at the same time. The hard thing is to elaborate that.
I looked disinterestedly at first at the AN/I thread involving the block, and being curious to see the other side of the argument, I looked at your user page. I felt sympathetic to your side, and then I read the AN/I thread again. I saw some very good points against the block there, and I don't think I need to tell you that you became very unpopular very quickly. But don't let that beat you down. Whether or not you were morally right, the policy you quoted does allow for blocking users who run unapproved bots; "legally" (and I use that term extremely loosely) you were in the right. Now to give Misza13 the benefit of the doubt: it may have been an oversight, or it might have been that you should have taken more time in between the steps you took—which were wholly appropriate, by the way. But whatever you should or should not have done, you did what you thought was right. And whether or not it was, I give you credit for doing it. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:49 23 September, 2008 (UTC)
I've always enjoyed chatting with you, Prod - and hope you're not too stressed by all the broo ha ha... come back when wiki makes you smile once more.. and do take some consolation from the fact that things round here never really work the way it says they do on the tin... but it's still a pretty awesome project :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 01:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia will be far worse off when you leave. Don't let one misstep bring you down completely, if I had let all my mistakes force me away, I would have left a long time ago. Erik the Red 2 ~~ ~~ 01:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Even Arbcom doesn't follow what few rules they have either. Why expect reason? Bye-bye. -- SEWilco ( talk) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I feel your pain. I got totally disgusted with the power tripping that goes on here and threw in my admin badge a few months ago. Best of luck with whatever you decide. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For your decency and commitment to fair play DuncanHill ( talk) 14:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
It's been great working with you in the past, and I look forward to doing so again in the future. Good luck in whatever you choose to do! Ale_Jrb talk 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For going ahead and doing the right thing, even though other people didn't like it. Ale_Jrb talk 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
"I could try...": 'cause you did it. 'Cause you do it.
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Because you provide information and assistance in order to answering "What Wikipedia is". A question hard to answer... at least for me. And for what you are: a reference and a guide. Thank you so much. Owdki talk 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
Your "hostile wikimood" expression-style is "one of my good days" expression-style =D.
After reading your comments, the ANI thread and the RFAR comments I felt embarrassed for some of those people. Thank heaven I haven't seen IRC comments. Anyway, and by contrast, there are other good people. This star is attached to them too (thanks for be here). Please, keep on. --
Owdki
talk 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Life is but a walking shadow,
a poor player, that struts and frets
his hour upon the stage,
and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot,'
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Have a great time off-wiki. Don't be long, hear? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
A motion passed in this case that concerns you: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Closed_motions#Final motion in Unapproved admin bots case. Also see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Unapproved_admin_bots_closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
That was a really silly decision made by our so-called hierarchy, but you should not leave because of the incapability of our system to make the right decision, advice...semi-retire from here for about 3 months, and join up with other major wikimedia projects which does not have an Achilles heel in regards to decision making, since retiring will not solve anything, don't blame the failure of one wiki on all the wikimedia project as a whole...your experience and knowledge will be highly appreciated on other wikimedia projects like, wikisource, wikiversity, commons, meta and wiktionary..don't leave :) ... -- Comet styles 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Prodego, you should come back now. The admin bot thing is largely resolved (and I guess thanks to you for forcing the issue?). The Bot approvals process has been modified to no longer require RFA, and the first batch of bots, including my very own Cydebot, has gotten the admin bit through the process, making it a totally legit admin bot. Many others are now going to follow suit as well. Soon enough you will be able to start blocking unauthorized admin bots because all of the legit ones will have gone legit. -- Cyde Weys 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are missed and I speak for a lot of people in hoping that you will be back on Wikipedia very soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 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) 10:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I sent you an email.-- Ashbey …whisper… 02:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Prodego. I noticed that the password recovery system on Account Creator has a bug in it. When you try to recover your password, it sends you an e-mail with a link, just like it's supposed to. But when you follow the link, it just takes you back to the login screen, so it doesn't give you your password or give you a chance to reset it. Would you please notify the devs of this issue? Thanks! ~ SunDragon34 (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my comments earlier. And I forgive you for that warning because it was accidental. I will erase my previous comments.
Blackeyedfool12
Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeyedfool12 ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Prodego, I only edited the Sandbox. It was not really a big deal. We discussed this before and I have apologized for my comments earlier.
Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blackeyedfool12 (
talk •
contribs) 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Prodego, I am contacting you because I am in need of help. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I noticed you reverted edits by user 69.239.112.1 to the Kyle Justin article. This user has edited the article several times, performing destructive edits. I believe these edits are covered under the vandalism policy as they are repeated and unnecessary. She has edited the article more than a few times, deleting necessary information, claiming it as redundant, when it is not. The information she has deleted is either not referenced elsewhere in the article or is necessary to repeat in order to properly lay out a time-line of events. I created this article for a musician I am fond of and myself and several others have contributed edits and citations. I believe we have cited the article well. I am looking for help to prevent further vandalism by this article, as she has performed these same edits about 5 times. The user 69.239.112.1 is actually a woman named <removed> of the band <removed> (both have Wiki articles) who is a former bandmate in Scarling of Kyle Justin's. I know this because it is the same IP that she uses on an old band's message board that I moderated on. She also only edits her own pages if you see her contributions. I believe she has also has attempted to vandalize other articles. I believe she is removing information out of spite and for her own motives, not to make Wikipedia or the article better. I am seeking help in preventing further vandalism. I sought help from another user named writingmodification but I don't believe they are an administrator. Any help, advice, or recommendations are greatly appreciated. Thanks ahead of time. I am perturbed and perplexed. -Matt, M. W. Eilers 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for looking into it Prodego. Have a great holiday, I do appreciate your help. I know that anyone on Wiki isn't involved in any personal disputes but it was really disheartening to see that the article I started on Kyle Justin was brought into it by this user. I would love to know what you think about this, because I think it's obvious that it's much more than a good faith content dispute and is just vandalism and she is turning it into an edit war. I want to make the article more stabilized and better so I welcome edits, have been editing other articles, seeking advice on making the article better from other Wikipedians, and have even been looking for more citations to quote. But to see it attacked is frustrating. I know that parts of the article repeat but I know that it is necessary and often encouraged here and that parts of articles should be outlined in their initial summary and then explained. I like Wikipedia and have been creating more content to add but then again, I feel like anything I add now may just be attacked by her or someone like her. In any event, thank you again I look forward to coming to some sort of resolvement. Happy turkey day! M. W. Eilers 15:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart ( talk • contribs)
Hey Prodego, thanks for getting back to me. Because I am very new I am reading up on all the guidelines so I can speak properly as a Wikipedian to the other user. I'm glad I am reading them because the guidelines all makes sense and are helping me with developing a dialogue before I talk. I suppose what I need to ask is their side, as to why they want these edits on this page. I'll tell them the side I see and back it up with explanations and citations. I suppose then we will see what happens. I don't want to be overproptective of the article but I just don't want it decimated by someone who I don't believe has good intentions. Do you have an recommedations on how to create a dialogue that will resolve the situation on here? Thanks again. -Matt M. W. Eilers 14:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart ( talk • contribs)
I see you reverted someone's edits in the sandbox - I got caught in the same trap a few days ago. It's a temporary bug, but we should all be on our guard. I've been avoiding Huggle after 10PM myself to make sure I don't make another slip I'll feel silly about!-- otherl left No, really, other way . . . 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I ended up with that user you over-Huggled on my watchlist, and I think this really was vandalism, but I had to dig to find it.-- otherl left No, really, other way . . . 04:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
That is okay, I forgive you. No hard feelings, right?
Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeyedfool12 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 November 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. |
Hi, took a chance and nominated myself for adminship. Cheers.-- LAA Fan sign review 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
on my talk page :) +sj + 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if the default size is small or not; but your edit also undid the addition of a CSS class "autosigned". If you'd like the size to be small the right syntax is <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">...</span>
. See also
Mediawiki talk:Common.css. Your recent edit put that template out of sync with the other unsigned templates. — Carl (
CBM ·
talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, on this IP user's talk page, should it actually be fully protected? It's the talk page of an IP user, so shouldn't it be semi protected? Just wondering, thanks. (P.S. I really admire your "anti-grawp" work!) Schfifty Three 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For protecting Economic crisis of 2008 from vandalism. Bearian ( talk) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
I use Twinkle's adminscripts to speed up repetitive admin tasks; they simple save me button clicking. I have to start the script up every time, so it is not fully automated. In an RfAR, I'm not fully involved as I don't run automated adminbots; however, with over 100 K deletions made, a lot of them with scripts, I can't be completely uninvolved. Maxim ( ☎) 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to your questions: Yes and yes. And common practice regarding blocking adminbots is not nearly as clear as you seem to think it is. Especially if the bot has been running for awhile with no problems, blocking the bot is a much worse decision than leaving it alone. -- Cyde Weys 04:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do run admin bots (see my full list), currently the only one I have running is my FA protection bot which has been approved for a trial by the bag (although I do use some admin scripts such as one to revert Grawp). And also if you do go to arbcom can you please notify me -- Chris 10:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
When you said "Unlike all other unauthorized blocks, unauthorized admin bots are often ignored", I think you meant "Unlike all other unauthorized bots, unauthorized admin bots are often ignored". I didn't change it because I did see mention somewhere of bots that block and even a software abuse filter that can now block... (I seem to have lost that discussion, can you point me to it?). Carcharoth ( talk) 06:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 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) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
First, I would like to say that it was MZMcBride who added me. To answer your questions, I do not run it anymore. When I did run it, I was always present when it ran. X clamation point 02:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems no one has told you yet, but there was unanimous consensus on AN/I that your block was a bad one, and it was overturned. I left my opinion on the matter there. Kind regards, -- how do you turn this on 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to add a sidenote: if arbcom decides to accept this as an arbitration case, I will retain adminship until arbcom decides they can't take it from me. I am confident that my actions were the right thing to do, and I will defend them. Please, before telling me what I did wrong, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misza13/Archives/2008/09#Gra_wp_reverts. Prodego talk 01:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not see the above statement as an unambiguous request to have admin bits turned off and therefore decline to act at this time. I suggested in IRC to Prodego that a good nights sleep might be a very good idea before actually making such a request. We all do things that others view as mistakes, or even that we ourselves view as mistakes. That is not a reason in and of itself to give up. Prodego has done a lot of very good work here and I hope this works out to everyone's satisfaction. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The easy thing for me to say is that I support your block of Misza13 and oppose it at the same time. The hard thing is to elaborate that.
I looked disinterestedly at first at the AN/I thread involving the block, and being curious to see the other side of the argument, I looked at your user page. I felt sympathetic to your side, and then I read the AN/I thread again. I saw some very good points against the block there, and I don't think I need to tell you that you became very unpopular very quickly. But don't let that beat you down. Whether or not you were morally right, the policy you quoted does allow for blocking users who run unapproved bots; "legally" (and I use that term extremely loosely) you were in the right. Now to give Misza13 the benefit of the doubt: it may have been an oversight, or it might have been that you should have taken more time in between the steps you took—which were wholly appropriate, by the way. But whatever you should or should not have done, you did what you thought was right. And whether or not it was, I give you credit for doing it. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:49 23 September, 2008 (UTC)
I've always enjoyed chatting with you, Prod - and hope you're not too stressed by all the broo ha ha... come back when wiki makes you smile once more.. and do take some consolation from the fact that things round here never really work the way it says they do on the tin... but it's still a pretty awesome project :-) cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 01:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia will be far worse off when you leave. Don't let one misstep bring you down completely, if I had let all my mistakes force me away, I would have left a long time ago. Erik the Red 2 ~~ ~~ 01:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Even Arbcom doesn't follow what few rules they have either. Why expect reason? Bye-bye. -- SEWilco ( talk) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I feel your pain. I got totally disgusted with the power tripping that goes on here and threw in my admin badge a few months ago. Best of luck with whatever you decide. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 04:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For your decency and commitment to fair play DuncanHill ( talk) 14:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
It's been great working with you in the past, and I look forward to doing so again in the future. Good luck in whatever you choose to do! Ale_Jrb talk 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
For going ahead and doing the right thing, even though other people didn't like it. Ale_Jrb talk 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
"I could try...": 'cause you did it. 'Cause you do it.
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Because you provide information and assistance in order to answering "What Wikipedia is". A question hard to answer... at least for me. And for what you are: a reference and a guide. Thank you so much. Owdki talk 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
Your "hostile wikimood" expression-style is "one of my good days" expression-style =D.
After reading your comments, the ANI thread and the RFAR comments I felt embarrassed for some of those people. Thank heaven I haven't seen IRC comments. Anyway, and by contrast, there are other good people. This star is attached to them too (thanks for be here). Please, keep on. --
Owdki
talk 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Life is but a walking shadow,
a poor player, that struts and frets
his hour upon the stage,
and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot,'
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Have a great time off-wiki. Don't be long, hear? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
A motion passed in this case that concerns you: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Closed_motions#Final motion in Unapproved admin bots case. Also see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Unapproved_admin_bots_closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
That was a really silly decision made by our so-called hierarchy, but you should not leave because of the incapability of our system to make the right decision, advice...semi-retire from here for about 3 months, and join up with other major wikimedia projects which does not have an Achilles heel in regards to decision making, since retiring will not solve anything, don't blame the failure of one wiki on all the wikimedia project as a whole...your experience and knowledge will be highly appreciated on other wikimedia projects like, wikisource, wikiversity, commons, meta and wiktionary..don't leave :) ... -- Comet styles 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Prodego, you should come back now. The admin bot thing is largely resolved (and I guess thanks to you for forcing the issue?). The Bot approvals process has been modified to no longer require RFA, and the first batch of bots, including my very own Cydebot, has gotten the admin bit through the process, making it a totally legit admin bot. Many others are now going to follow suit as well. Soon enough you will be able to start blocking unauthorized admin bots because all of the legit ones will have gone legit. -- Cyde Weys 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are missed and I speak for a lot of people in hoping that you will be back on Wikipedia very soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 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) 10:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I sent you an email.-- Ashbey …whisper… 02:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Prodego. I noticed that the password recovery system on Account Creator has a bug in it. When you try to recover your password, it sends you an e-mail with a link, just like it's supposed to. But when you follow the link, it just takes you back to the login screen, so it doesn't give you your password or give you a chance to reset it. Would you please notify the devs of this issue? Thanks! ~ SunDragon34 (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my comments earlier. And I forgive you for that warning because it was accidental. I will erase my previous comments.
Blackeyedfool12
Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeyedfool12 ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Prodego, I only edited the Sandbox. It was not really a big deal. We discussed this before and I have apologized for my comments earlier.
Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blackeyedfool12 (
talk •
contribs) 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Prodego, I am contacting you because I am in need of help. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I noticed you reverted edits by user 69.239.112.1 to the Kyle Justin article. This user has edited the article several times, performing destructive edits. I believe these edits are covered under the vandalism policy as they are repeated and unnecessary. She has edited the article more than a few times, deleting necessary information, claiming it as redundant, when it is not. The information she has deleted is either not referenced elsewhere in the article or is necessary to repeat in order to properly lay out a time-line of events. I created this article for a musician I am fond of and myself and several others have contributed edits and citations. I believe we have cited the article well. I am looking for help to prevent further vandalism by this article, as she has performed these same edits about 5 times. The user 69.239.112.1 is actually a woman named <removed> of the band <removed> (both have Wiki articles) who is a former bandmate in Scarling of Kyle Justin's. I know this because it is the same IP that she uses on an old band's message board that I moderated on. She also only edits her own pages if you see her contributions. I believe she has also has attempted to vandalize other articles. I believe she is removing information out of spite and for her own motives, not to make Wikipedia or the article better. I am seeking help in preventing further vandalism. I sought help from another user named writingmodification but I don't believe they are an administrator. Any help, advice, or recommendations are greatly appreciated. Thanks ahead of time. I am perturbed and perplexed. -Matt, M. W. Eilers 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for looking into it Prodego. Have a great holiday, I do appreciate your help. I know that anyone on Wiki isn't involved in any personal disputes but it was really disheartening to see that the article I started on Kyle Justin was brought into it by this user. I would love to know what you think about this, because I think it's obvious that it's much more than a good faith content dispute and is just vandalism and she is turning it into an edit war. I want to make the article more stabilized and better so I welcome edits, have been editing other articles, seeking advice on making the article better from other Wikipedians, and have even been looking for more citations to quote. But to see it attacked is frustrating. I know that parts of the article repeat but I know that it is necessary and often encouraged here and that parts of articles should be outlined in their initial summary and then explained. I like Wikipedia and have been creating more content to add but then again, I feel like anything I add now may just be attacked by her or someone like her. In any event, thank you again I look forward to coming to some sort of resolvement. Happy turkey day! M. W. Eilers 15:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart ( talk • contribs)
Hey Prodego, thanks for getting back to me. Because I am very new I am reading up on all the guidelines so I can speak properly as a Wikipedian to the other user. I'm glad I am reading them because the guidelines all makes sense and are helping me with developing a dialogue before I talk. I suppose what I need to ask is their side, as to why they want these edits on this page. I'll tell them the side I see and back it up with explanations and citations. I suppose then we will see what happens. I don't want to be overproptective of the article but I just don't want it decimated by someone who I don't believe has good intentions. Do you have an recommedations on how to create a dialogue that will resolve the situation on here? Thanks again. -Matt M. W. Eilers 14:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart ( talk • contribs)
I see you reverted someone's edits in the sandbox - I got caught in the same trap a few days ago. It's a temporary bug, but we should all be on our guard. I've been avoiding Huggle after 10PM myself to make sure I don't make another slip I'll feel silly about!-- otherl left No, really, other way . . . 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I ended up with that user you over-Huggled on my watchlist, and I think this really was vandalism, but I had to dig to find it.-- otherl left No, really, other way . . . 04:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
That is okay, I forgive you. No hard feelings, right?
Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeyedfool12 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)