User talk:Prodego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your signature[edit]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> : Prodego talk


[[User:Prodego|<i style="color: darkgreen">Prodego</i>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<span style="color="darkgreen">talk</span>]]</sup> : Prodego talk

Anomalocaris (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Anomalocaris –- I've updated my signature with your suggestion. Prodego talk 01:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, and kudos for fixing my stray equals-quotation mark instead of colon in the markup! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 20 February 2018[edit]

Re: your comments on WT:RfA[edit]

The reason I reacted the way I did was the way I interpreted 65HCA7's comments, they were implying that anyone with a high edit count would pass RfA, no matter if those edits are 100% automated, BLP-violating article creations, and/or useless AfD spamming. That's simply untrue, and anyone who's spent the amount of time at RfA that they say they have should know that any one of those things alone would sink an RfA faster than the RMS Titanic, and likely result in a topic ban from the areas of disruption. To top it off, see their oppose in the current RfA, which I assume was the trigger for this. For someone ostensibly complaining about inflating standards and editcountitis, that's IMO an extremely hypocritical oppose. ansh666 01:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 26 April 2018[edit]

Standard Deviation crappy image[edit]

I noticed 4 problems with the standard deviation image. Upon doing 5 minutes of crawling wikipedia, I found you independently found some of the same issues. So in case you want to pick this back up, here are the 4 problems I found, and I copied the discussion off of some moderator's talk page to jog your memory.

  • First, and most severe, it's shifted by 5 units. The "bins" of 10 units are graphed at the leading edge instead of at the midpoint. E.g., the samples falling between 90 and 100 are shown at the x=90 position instead of the x=95 position where they belong.
  • Second, the max and min bins (for the red sample) are handled differently. The max bin is graphed as a vertical line from its count, down to the origin; the min bin is graphed as a diagonal line from its count, over to the left neighbor bin's origin. The diagonal line method should be used in both places.
  • The samples do not have the mean and S.D. indicated. The RNG produces values with the given statistical properties, so the resultant samples represent a subset of values from a larger (infinite) population with the indicated mean and S.D. The samples shown have something close to, but not exactly, the indicated properties. This is handled by shifting and inflating/compressing the output data to match the desired values.
  • Finally, the x-axis is truncated at zero. I think the x-axis should include most or all data points, but it doesn't. And the fact that it truncates at 0, but not at the high end, gives the false impression that there is something special about 0, which is not the case when discussing the standard deviation and mean of a sample. (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC) – Oh yes, I remember that. Looks like you found even more issues than what I had noticed. It may be that the best option is just make a new image with consistently plotted data with the specified statistics. What do you propose we do? Are you interested in making a new image for the page?
I removed the content of the discussion you pasted here just to avoid confusing my talkpage. Definitely on point, that was about the same picture.
P.S. you may be interested in registering an account. It makes communicating a bit easier and you’ll need it to upload images. Prodego talk 04:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 29 June 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 1 October 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 28 October 2018[edit]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Prodego. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 31 January 2019[edit]

Deletion review for List of unaccredited institutions of higher education[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lurking shadow (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Lurking shadow - popular consensus on what to include on the site and how to judge AfD outcomes has changed in the past decade or so. I agree that the arguments that were made at that AfD are not all relevant in the current climate. You are welcome to open a new AfD for that page, which would get some more contemporary responses on its inclusion for the site. Prodego talk 23:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019[edit]

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago[edit]

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt - Time flies. Prodego talk 00:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019[edit]

The June 2019 Signpost is out![edit]

Content dispute?[edit]

In what universe are maintenance templates (signalling undersourced BLPs and mangled English among other things, as you no doubt noticed in your thorough review) article content? In what universe is it ok to keep blindly removing templates after a final warning? Why do we even have a templated series of warnings for removal of maintenance tags, if that's a "content dispute"? --bonadea contributions talk 15:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea - sorry, I should have been a bit more descriptive in my response. I declined to block immediately because I was looking for some engagement on the article talk page or a user's talk page discussing why the tags were or weren't needed, and I didn't see any in my review. I didn't see that (please point me to it if I missed it), so I viewed this as a content dispute as to whether or not the tags were needed. If the user doesn't engage in a discussion on the talk page as to why the tags are needed, and continues to remove them, I'd be happy to block at that point. Alternately, feel free to seek a second opinion. Prodego talk 15:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

John Roberts[edit]

Can you please also block They are now starting the same edits as the other IP you just blocked. S0091 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@S0091: looks like it has been done. Let me know if you see any more. Prodego talk 01:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Seems calm for now. S0091 (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]