This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Restoring personal attack edit summaries by sock puppets

Posted it at AN/I instead. [1] Wiki brah should be blocked and have his/her edit summaries and posts anddeleted rather than praised, restored, and called attention to. -- Kleopatra ( talk) 23:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Other uses6

Template:Other uses6 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - DePiep ( talk) 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Prodego, Thank you very much for deleting that page!! I just don't have the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.21.128 ( talk) 10:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Which one specifically?

The impression I got from reading the topic was that it had been dealt with and further commentary was just bringing further attention to a troll. Half Shadow 00:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Better? Half Shadow 00:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; as I said to Kleopatra, feel free to change the summary as you wish. I was merely closing it to deny further attention. Half Shadow 01:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

edit reverts

Okay I don't really know how to properly talk to wikipidia users or editors. But I just wanna ask why the hell did you rervert all the Ninku additions I made? The article is clearly lacking and I am trying to buff up the detail of an anime that is well over 10 yrs old.

Because this edit from the same IP address you are using caused me to question the correctness of all the other edits. You can undo my reversion if that wasn't you. Prodego ^talk 19:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok that was me seeing as lowest common denominator needed a reference so I used a BBC article to show an example of lowest common denominator. But that edit should be independent as to why you'd wanna undo all the changes to the Ninku edits. It's a seperate issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 ( talk) 23:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Look could we have a resolution on this. The Ninku article needs some serious buffing. If you can't get back to me on this well then I'll just have to revert the changes and try continue to buff the article as much as I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 ( talk) 16:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, I have no problem if you restore the changes you made. Prodego ^talk 02:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.32.8 ( talk) 04:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Edit filter

Hey Prodego. Do you think you can help out with another temporary filter? Elockid (Alternate) ^{( Talk)} 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I could, but I am assuming it has already been done? Prodego ^talk 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not yet. Well, I don't think anybody's done it yet. Elockid ^{( Talk)} 03:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

commons:File:Contactus-wmcolors.png

Hi

I've reverted your revert due to it breaking so many contact us pages on so many wikis. I've personally fixed enwiki, I'm not gonna be able to find an admin on every wiki it's broken on. Anyway, why did you revert it in the first place? Logan was clear why he reverted to the working version, but you offered no such reasoning for effectively breaking it.

Thanks, [ stwalkerster| talk] 03:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed as many as I could (with thumb) across lots of wikis, going from global usage [2]. Some, I couldn't do, because of protection;

• pl:Wikipedia:Kontakt/Zgłoszenie_zdjęcia
• hr:Wikipedija:Kontaktirajte_nas
• fr:Wikipédia:Contact/Copyvio
• fr:Wikipédia:Contact/WMF
• fr:Wikipédia:Contact/Liens
• fr:Wikipédia:Contact/Contributeurs

...and one, I cannot figure out, and seems to be broken at this time; ar:ويكيبيديا:اتصل_بنا.

I may have missed some, and clearly it would make sense to check carefully through usage, and get local sysops to change, before reinstating the new version.  Chzz   ►  05:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it after I fixed it on enwiki (or at least, every page listed at the time. If the image is incorrectly used, that is someone's problem to fix - 'people are using it wrong' is not an excuse to use a lower quality image. Prodego ^talk 07:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, some of the ones I fixed hadn't been edited in months, so either you missed some or the tool you were using is broken. Secondly, and more importantly, this is an image which is used on some of the more important pages on Wikipedia - the ones which allow disgruntled people to contact the WMF - having a huge image blocking that isn't good. You're right, using a lower-quality image isn't an excuse normally, but given the usage of this image I think an exception is needed, at least until it's fixed on the major wikis, which includes plwiki and frwiki. [ stwalkerster| talk] 19:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Help Please

I'm tryin to unify my user globally on wikipedia, but on this wiki some user have logged whit the same user name. He or she doesn't have eaven a user page, maybe he or she even use it really. I am asking you for help to unify me, my user name is Qban answer me on wiki.es [3]. My native language is spanish, but you should answer me in english(it is medium, please be understandable). Thanks-- 200.55.135.211 ( talk) 05:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Filter 393

It had a bunch of false positives because I made an error when updating the code that I didn't pick up on when testing it before. There are 115 false positives in the span of 2 minutes, after which there are none because I fixed the filter. Can it be re-enabled again? Maxim _(talk) 13:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Reenabled, sorry I didn't check was was going on more throughly. Though I'm not sure we should be using a filter to enforce wikiproject guidelines. Prodego ^talk 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

New user

User:MasterBates? Are you sure? NawlinWiki ( talk) 01:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't offensive, misleading, or obvious trolling. It is clearly a joke, but within the username policy. And there is some small chance it isn't. In any case I expect that no one will use it anyway. Prodego ^talk 01:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page abuse by IP

[4] I suggest talk page access be revoked. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there is just that one edit (which is actually from before the block). IPs are often shared, so I'd like to leave talk page access enabled to allow anyone else who might get that IP to easily request unblocking. If he does it repeatedly then I'd consider a talk page block as well, but I don't think we need one yet. Prodego ^talk 23:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

stale

What does it mean when admins like you remove things from AIV with "rm stale"? Jasper Deng (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that blocks are preventative not punitive, and because IP addresses are often shared between multiple people (this particular one belongs to a school), if an IP vandalizes only once or twice, and hasn't done so for several hours, we often won't block the IP. A block in that case isn't going to stop any current vandalism. For this IP I see sporadic vandalism with large gaps in between. So I don't think a block is worth the danger of impacting someone who might otherwise make a good edit. 'Stale' specifically refers to vandals that have stopped. Prodego ^talk 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove this thread?

[5] Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of preventing unneeded drama that isn't going to help write an encyclopedia. Prodego ^talk 05:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So not in the interests of protecting your admin mate from his foolishness? I really think that you ought to reconsider. Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Preventing several people from causing trouble with their foolishness is how I'd prefer to think of it. [6]. Prodego ^talk 05:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well at least you were thinking, or at least claim to be having thinking, unlike your mate. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Prodego

I don't know where I can go, or who contact to. The problem is that my user page is commonly vandalized by the blocked editor CharlieJS13 ( talk · contribs). He insists that I am a vandal and I made his Wikilife a hell. This pseudovandalism is a consensus at WP:GAGA to call Lady Gaga by what ASCAP/ BMI states (sometimes her legal name, sometimes her stage name). He was blocked in May for breaking his 0RR restiction and since then he has been vandalizing my user and talkpage. In all his attacks, he blanks my pages and/or replace them with RD2/death threats messages. The reason why I am here is for ask a kind of filter to prevent non-confirmed users in blaking other users' pages. For now, the filter 34 has worked very well at my talk page, but there is no filter to prevent this problems. Protecting the page will only lead vandalism to my talkpage, and that is something I do not want; protect my talkpage will not be done unless I have the same long-term vandalism off my userpage. So I am asking you if you could create a filter, or if I have to go with someone else, or search a kind of consensus to prevent IPs blanking others' userpages. Thanks you Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I could, but this sort of vandalism tends to quickly mutate to evade such a filter, so it likely wouldn't be effective. Honestly I think your best option is to just ignore it. Prodego ^talk 06:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There comes a time in which you just cannot ignore it, Ok the purpose of this activities is disturbing you and after 100 times, they manage to do it. I'm not asking this to help only me, exist many times I've seen "User:Disruptive edited User:Example blanking the page" or "User:Disruptive edited User:Example replacing it with nonsense/message/attack". I mean, the filter 34 was created for a reason and it really works, obviously you can avoid the filter doing something (I've seen the filter stops them once and if they edit again the edit may pass, depending in the edit). Consider this, is not for me, is for the community in general. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I extended 34 to disallow user page blankings as well as talk page blankings. I expect that form of vandalism will just change, but it should stop this. Prodego ^talk 20:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reconsider it. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge

I created the above page and believe that this was not a non-controversial candidate for speedy deletion. Given that their were quite a few signatories, you could have nominated this page for deletion discussions. I believe that this page is similar to those pages where for example, administrators accept to be open to recall. In case you have no issues, I request you to restore this page and nominate this page for deletion discussions. If you have no issues, I could restore the page myself. However, I'll await for your reply till tomorrow before either restoring it or undertaking a deletion review - depending upon your feedback. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is problematic for two reasons:

1. It has no role in improving the encyclopedia. That page has no positive impact whatsoever, and is related to Wikipedia only tangentially. It's presence in the Wikipedia userspace is illogical at best.
2. This page horribly misrepresents the ACC tool, insinuating that these users are voluntarily recusing from releasing so called 'personal information' out of their own good will. Nothing of the sort is going on. I am very much considering whether anyone who sees it that way should continue to have access to the tool.

The page meets no obvious CSD, other than having a purely negative impact. As always, you may restore it if you believe a page like this should exist, but I would seek to delete it via the more formal venues. Prodego ^talk 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I do believe a page like this should exist. However, due to the fact that you are one of the editors I respect considerably on this project, I shall myself nominate this page for a deletion discussion. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion discussions. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

== Please Explain ==

May you explain why you deleted Wikipedia:ACC tool user pledge? I know that you say that it is a misuse of the "inappropriate use of Wikipedia namespace" but could you give all the details? ~~ EBE123~~ ^talk _Contribs 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"No consensus"

Seriously? -- tariqabjotu 05:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize you removed that a full twenty minutes ago now, so let me elaborate: I think it's highly improper for you to remove an item from ITN without even commenting on the nomination at ITN/C with an explanation. I provided an explanation as to why I felt consensus was there -- oppose remarks were primarily one editor whining and several saying to wait for the final. With more comments after the nomination went up, the consensus is even clearer. But, now you've just removed an item claiming "no consensus" without providing any explanation whatsoever. -- tariqabjotu 05:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why we would want to go down the path of including a minor match inside a minor tournament on the main page, but if that's what you want to do, so be it. Sporting events are overdone as it is. I don't see how that could be considered consensus. Even the final is questionable. Discarding opposition based on it's triviality seems illogical to me. Prodego ^talk 05:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)n

"A minor match" that gained global coverage? "A minor tournament" that is a world championship with sigificant following in a vast swathe of the English-speaking world? "Even the final is questionable"? We have a system at ITN, including WP:ITNC and WP:ITNR, the latter of which is pre-determined by discussion and consensus. It comes across as you ignoring all consensus because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. Especially as I don't ever recall having seen you at ITN before this item (at least since I started taking part there), and the fact that you opposed this nomination, this is even more profoundly the sense I'm getting from your actions. Please restore. In addition, as ITNR is pre-determined consensus, I would strongly advise you to refrain removing any item which may be posted about the final. I would consider that since you've already removed an item on it and expressed your views against such an item, if you were to remove another item about the tournament it would amount to a content dispute. Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 06:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Prodego - you have no idea, and no manners. And I have no idea how, with behaviour like that, you earnt all those barnstars. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Prodego came to this conclusion at all in light of the discussion held, and I urge him to reread the ITN/C discussion and revert himself, but WP:CIVIL still applies, and HiLo48, your comment is in breach of it. Courcelles 07:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My comment is a response to someone whose manners are very poor. He pulled the item with no comment at all on the discussion page, hiding it here. The justification here is quite stupid, and offensive to a big chunk of the world's population. I will not retract until he demonstrates that he DOES have some idea about this matter. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this issue to ANI I'm really quite shocked to see it pulled given the number of post-posting supports for this item. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)