Jump to content

User talk:Prodego

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SunCountryGuy01 (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 8 April 2011 (→‎Unprotection: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Other uses6

Template:Other uses6 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#Template:Other uses6|the 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)[reply]

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. HalfShadow 00:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better? HalfShadow 00:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. HalfShadow 01:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

I could, but I am assuming it has already been done? Prodego talk 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not yet. Well, I don't think anybody's done it yet. Elockid (Talk) 03:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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;

...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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

New user

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

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)[reply]

Talk page abuse by IP

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why did you remove this thread?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you so much for reconsider it. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have nominated the page for deletion discussions. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 10:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

== 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~~ talkContribs 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No consensus"

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

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)[reply]
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[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Will follow the pointers. Best. Wifione ....... Leave a message 14:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re:

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thanks

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

Unprotection

Hello, Prodego. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prodego&oldid=423097212"