|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Partial list of stubs/short articles created or rewritten by Adv A students
- 2 More stubs!!! (the last major batch, I promise!)
- 3 Point of order
- 4 Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
- 5 My vandal counter
- 6 RFA thanks
- 7 css gadget
- 8 Recent changes
- 9 Kabbalah edit?
- 10 Hi there!
- 11 Huggle!
- 12 Earless Seal Evolution
- 13 Please block this user
- 14 Thanks
- 15 Block
- 16 Caltrop's Talk Page
- 17 Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
Partial list of stubs/short articles created or rewritten by Adv A students
I know there are a lot here, but many are very short stubs. If there are a lot of grammar mistakes, just tag it with a clean up tag. I did not require that they wikify the articles due to time. Final versions for grading purposes are due Tue Feb 5 so any help you can give would be appreciated.
Santa Clara del Cobre, San Felipe del Progreso, Villa de allende, Ixtapan del Oro, Zumpahuacán, San Juan del Río, Nautla, Santo_tomas_de_los_platanos, Tejupilco, Saint Vincent (island), Jilotepec, Tlacotepec, Palizada, Santa Gertrudis (This student wrote about the town in Oaxaca State but it redirects to Misión Santa Gertrudis in Baja California. The student´s stub is under the information about the mission), Álvaro Obregón (municipality), Zentla, Bernal, Querétaro, Temoaya, Acambay, Xpu Há, Chapa de Mota, Pasorapa, Huasca_de_Ocampo, Malinalco, Mexico State, Almoloya de Júarez, Polotitlan, Córdoba, Veracruz, Mexicaltzingo, Lagunillas, Michoacán, [Ixcateopan]], Benito Júarez, Quintana Roo, Jocotitlan, Ixtlahuaca, Temascaltepec, Teapa, Tabasco, Huandacareo, Zualcapan, México, Capulhuac, Xalatlaco, Boca del Cielo
More stubs!!! (the last major batch, I promise!)
Malinalco, Valle, Tlalpujahua, Xonotla, Otumba, Aculco de Espinoza, Lerma, Tonatico, Luvianos, Tarimoro, Guanajuato, Tambopata - Candamo, Donato Guerra, Angangeo, Huixquilucan, Tlatlaya, Jiquipilco, Juchitepec
Point of order
On WP:AN, you reference the fact that Bishonen's talk page cannot be undeleted or redeleted. Is this because of the high number of edits, or some other reason? for my information, as a newly minted admin, I'm curious as to what the situation is there. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, pages with over 5000 edits can not be deleted at this point. However, it can still be undeleted. Prodego talk 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|Volume 4, Issue 6||4 February 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) 08:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
My vandal counter
Yes, I do count that as vandalism (only for the counter). I keep a userbox on the bottom of the page for the true. Oh, and you might as well update the vandal counter on my talk page as well, before anyone gets to it before you. Basketball110 the pages I've messed up completely 05:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Prodego, I was just surprised by a the green-on-black layout of Wikipedia and I found the gadget checked in my preferences. Maybe I had it selected at some point in the past? Anyway, I see that it is only a test, but please could we discuss changes or additions on Wikipedia_talk:Gadget, MediaWiki_talk:Gadgets-definition, or Wikipedia:Gadget_proposals (or at least leave a note about planned changes). Thanks, Сасусlе 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- This was brought up a while ago, on VPT and VPP, and I created it then due to popular request, based on Brian0918's skin. However, it was buggy, so I removed it, and updated it to work. While I was doing so, all those pages you mention were created. Now that it is working, I re-added it. You probably had had it checked from when it was first added. Prodego talk 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
== Sloppy Joe
- I'll definately do that. I have tried to use popups but it didn't really help --Capitana (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Prodego, I see that you reverted an edit I made to the Kabbalah article and then you re-reverted it. What I removed I thought was a rather useless section in a very long article. But perhaps it would have been better, instead of removing the section, to move it to the talk page for discussion. If you have any suggestions on how to best proceed with this sort of thing please do let me know. I have, in the past been involved in acrimonious arguments, and I am concerned to avoid that and to do things in the best way possible. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you use IRC? I wanted to chat with you about something... if so, please join #wikipedia-en-unblock so I can chat! :)
- Not until I get a cloak I don't (I have been waiting 3 weeks now). You can email me though, or use Google Talk (through Gmail). I am my username at gmail.com. Prodego talk 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to tell you, I added this section to the Huggle page, I hope you don't mind :)
- I mind those new colors. Quite awful. :) Luckily I have my own version. And yes, I noticed you moved mine over, though it is mine no more. Prodego talk 15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, the first box, your original should stay original! I will RV it :) --The Helpful One 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Earless Seal Evolution
Prodego, I was simply fixing the false evolutionary facts on the Earless Seal page, but if you insist that I leave the information inaccurate, then I must comply. --.::Rithschap::. (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please block this user
You recently gave this IP address a "Last Warning" here []. This user has yet again vandalized a page, by deleting all of its references. Please block the IP address. Happy Editing, Dustitalk 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
|Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)|
Prodego, I noticed that you have blocked the now-vanished user from editing. I think this is an unnecessary action. The only edits being made were removing of personal information (ie an actual RL name), which is part of the WP:VANISH process. Ryan P. made a comment on the user in question's talk page and got a 'right o' response on his own, after which no edits were made. Despite this, you unilaterally issued an indefinite block. The rename and vanish approach has been accepted by a member of ArbCom (see Newyorkbrad's endorsement of the 'vanished user' version of the proposed decision page in its history). We are talking about a highly valued editor who has been forced out of WP. Why does an action that appears to be AND DON'T COME BACK *SLAM* need to be taken? Aren't we all hoping that he might be able to come back at some point down the track? Note that ArbCom didn't change its decision to "gone. block. move on.", they left the possibility of a return open (well, ajar, anyway). I believe this is a case where a single admin should not be blocking, but that any block of this sort should be carried out only at ArbCom's direction. I also ask that you consider the amount of damage WP has done to the now-vanished user, and try not to add to it. EdChem (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Removing that information should not be done by the user, for the obvious reasons. You simply can't edit under the username "Vanished User" it is completely unacceptable. If you want to edit, don't vanish, that simple. That said, I left the offer to email me or use the talk page should that user need any assistance. If he wants to return, it will be under a new username. Prodego talk 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Prodego, you're missing my point. Of course he can't come back with the same user name, but there is nothing in the actions in question that indicate anything but an intention to vanish. No edits in main space on any topic (let alone ones in which he is interested). No vandalism, or anti-WP screeds. Simply removing references to his name. Now, should he have asked someone else to complete the work? Sure - as Ryan did, and receive a 'right o' response. But it is understandable that he is concerned, and his recent ordeal would not inspire confidence thats others will act with his privacy and best interests in mind. Now, I am not saying that everyone is out to get him - newyorkbrad, for example, has come out of this process with an enhanced reputation for compassion, common sense, integrity, and a whole bunch of other things. However, he has been through an ordeal, and one which has provoked a lot of consternation in the community. Within that context and bearing in mind that he did nothing after responding to Ryan's post, and so I ask again: Why does an action that appears to be AND DON'T COME BACK *SLAM* need to be taken? EdChem (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is precedent here, in that this user over here (please don't use account names here unless it is absolutely needed) did something similar, though for different reasons, I think. This user here should, I believe, be allowed to use this account to replace his former name where it appears. The question of future editing can be left open to ArbCom, in my opinion, but it would be silly in the extreme for this account to be used for anything other than username replacement. It should be noted of course that even with username replacement like this, after a rename, it is trivially easy to track back and find out who the original user was, which is why I oppose such actions on principle (while not standing in the way of people who want to do this for security reasons). It's just that most people never bother to track back and find out who the original user was. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- While we're on the subject, there is also support not only in the form of the spirit of WP:VANISH, but also the comment here: "if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection. They are: ... 2. Change references to your former username to be referenced to your replacement username (you can do this yourself)." So, this block is arguably unjustified on the grounds given; if it is to remain, it should be amended to explicitly relate to WP:U, along the lines I suggested elsewhere. EdChem (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, I just came here to support your block, I wish I had done it and earlier. I for one am tired of people abusing the system and going about causing as much drama as possible. John Reaves 07:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- You should really take such steps first. That username is confusing, and violates WP:U, so it shouldn't be editing. Hiding could be a serious username, more acceptable under WP:U. I will change all the references to his old name myself if he would like (and there is no popular objection). Prodego talk 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Caltrop's Talk Page
I am a longstanding admin, your plan to help me with my talk page is not something I will agree to. Please leave my talk page alone or submit your case to arbitration. Caltrop (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
|Volume 4, Issue 7||11 February 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) 09:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)