User:Prodego/archive/57

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Miserable Christmas
I hope you have that. Bahaha, didn't think I could vandalize your holiday, eh? Well, guess I showed you! :D I kid, have a great one! Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  03:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ) Prodego  talk  19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
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) 13:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic
A review of the Talk page edit history shows you to be familiar with this case. User:Eschoir, an editor with a clear WP:COI issue to begin with, is now marching into territory that could best be described as a fusion between WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:DE and WP:DBAD. The editor made an article edit containing the word "penis." Since this article had nothing to do with either sexuality or medicine, it immediately raised concerns for me. He was describing some event involvng two real people, Kristinn Taylor and someone with the alias "Dr. Raoul," and he now admits that the event never even happened. So this also raised WP:BLP issues. I left a warning on his Talk page and he has been calling me a sockpuppet ever since.

The editor is also engaged in taunting another editor. This is clearly not consistent with the goal of creating a good encyclopedia. I suggest that a brief block may be in order, along with a warning that an article ban could be next. Thank you. 68.31.137.39 (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking. Prodego  talk  20:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we to assume that 68.31.137.39 is not BryanfromPalatine? How long? Eschoir (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir, file your RFCU if you're so sure about this. Let an experienced RFCU admin examine your claim and give you the answer you deserve. I'll keep working to build a better encyclopedia. Thanks, Prodego. Please keep looking in on this from time to time. Eschoir may not have learned anything today. 68.31.220.221 (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. You're anonymously posting from shifting IP addresses. One gets blocked for another year, what do you care?

Except you don't have a legacy. Eschoir (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For a link to Mr Taylor and his costume loving friend, see [http://inlinethumb02.webshots.com/38785/1076713821040384252S600x600Q85.jpg Doctor Raoul as Hillary's brother. (06/12/03)]Eschoir (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP is not close to the ones Brion (and Dean) was using. That isn't conclusive of course, but... Now, you could argue for meatpuppetry, if you wanted, but I think that regardless of that, 68 makes some good points about the article, even if I don't agree with all of them. So I would not immediately call out 'sockpuppet', since 68 wants to contribute, even if there were to be some bias on his/her part. The fact that someone just shows up immediately on the FR article is rather suggestive of bias, but so long as this person follows the rules, and works collaboratively, there isn't a problem. As for including our costume friend, we need to ask an important question: does such information belong in an encyclopedia article? I think sometimes we lose sight of the fact that an encyclopedia is what we are building, and can caught up in whether something is or isn't true, rather than if it is actually relevant. Prodego  talk  02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not advocating inclusion of the costume guy in the article, I just gave you the link to show I wasn't making him up.

And I am certainly not calling for 68 to be blocked, because he apparently can't be - anonymously posting from an ever changing IP address. I note that WP policy is forgiveness and reinstatement with contrition and committment to change.

But Bryan won't change.

Speaking of [Shibumi2], does it amuse you as it does me when people try to write posing as a foreigner, they adopt and incorporate the oral affectations of a foreign accent in the writing, as if a college educated Amerind would write "Me heap sorry you misunderstand me"? Eschoir (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been editing Wikipedia for about two yearsand I've done my best to be constructive. I have a long history of edits under IP addresses starting with 68, 69 and 70. I do not seek recognition or a position of responsibility, since Admins like Prodego can confirm that both are burdensome. I just want to make Wikipedia a better resource for everyone. I like using this wireless service because it allows me to edit while riding the train, and I have a long commute 10-12 times a week. It helps me to make productive use of my time.
 * Occasionally I run into a troll. I do not suffer trolls lightly. 70.9.56.94 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

 * -- AKeen (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Prodego
Very good edit on Free Republic from you. I saw this problem but was blocked. You made excellent edit just very short time before I was unblocked. Can you read my mind? What am I thinking? Have good weekend. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Return of Freedomaintfree to Free Republic article?
In his last FR talk post before permanent bannage, Bryan wrote

The Jewish World Review source indicates that Drudge removed his link to FR because of racist posts surrounding the "Clinton love child" story. But you've ignored a statement by Drudge one paragraph later in the same JWR story, saying that he restored the link. The history is that Drudge briefly removed the link for racist posts, quickly restored the link, and then removed the link again for unknown reasons. As it stood, the paragraph here in the Wiki article was misleading; and the brief removal of the link for a few racist posts isn't notable. FreedomAintFree 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Six months later, the edit reappears!

entitled: Improving layout. Changing some awkward wording ... nothing substantive.) (undo)

Drudge later restored the link from his site to Free Republlc, but dropped it again for unknown reasons, and currently does not link.

This has been eating at him for six months - and he couldn't resist the edit.

What does Wiki do? How do you discipline an unregistered banned editor with a false proxy? Eschoir (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Prodego, Eschoir is using this false accusation as his excuse to defy consensus, engage in a revert war, and continue to make the Free Republic article his personal blog. He's in the habit of chopping up my edits on the Talk page when responding to them (in violation of several Wikipedia policies listed below), resulting in an incomprehensible mess. I found out about the Drudge Report item by reviewing the article's Talk page, then checking the JWR source. The Drudge Report item, as it stands right now and as Eschoir is trying to keep it, is inaccurate. Little did I know that it was going to be like this if I tried to make it more accurate. Even though I preserved Drudge's accusation of racism in the article, that wasn't good enough. Eschoir insists on preserving the inaccuracy in the article. As a direct result of this ongoing WP:COI violation, Eschoir is violating WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:DBAD, WP:NPA, and the spirit if not the letter of WP:3RR.


 * You previously declined to take action against Eschoir, believing that a warning would be enough. He has an ongoing COI problem and without your intervention, he will continue to make this WP article his personal blog. This article is still on Arbcom probation. Editors such as Eschoir who make disruptive edits may be banned by any admin from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Please review his edits, edit summaries and his baiting and personal attacks on the Talk page, and take the action that is necessary here. 70.9.56.94 (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is quite indicative Eschoir, I agree. But wouldn't it be more accurate to say it was restored then removed again? I am not sure I understand this fully, could you explain? I imagine you both have a bit of WP:COI, but regardless of who you are 70, and even if you are Brion, don't care. The article does seem quite anti-FR now, whereas before it was more pro-FR. Can't we get it in the middle, at least? Many of the quotes are there to make FR look like a crazy dangerous extreme radical site, whereas it is a forum, an extremely conservative forum, but just a forum. For example: "struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine", "Leftists began to infiltrate the site", "It's scary how much power they do have". All that shows is Robinson is crazy :) But it makes it seem like the site is some sort of dangerous cult, when it is again: a forum! Compare the FR article with Democratic Underground, and you can easily see what I mean. DU is pretty neutral, whereas FR is very biased. Describe the site, describe important things, describe its influence, but don't nitpick out quotes that make FR seem crazy, or quotes that make it seem like FR is under assault from those 'awful leftists', and is the only bastion of truth.  Prodego  talk  18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, it would be more accurate to say it was restored then removed again, though more prolix.

But it makes it seem like the site is some sort of dangerous cult, when it is again: a forum! Compare the FR article with Democratic Underground, and you can easily see what I mean. I just read the DU article. It is quite different, but not interesting to me. I don't have anything to say about it - I think following liberal fools less interesting than conservative cultists.

And what if it is a dangerous cult? The Naziism article is a lot more biassed than say the Christian Democratic Union article. Should an encyclopedia gloss over the differences?

For example: "struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine", "Leftists began to infiltrate the site", "It's scary how much power they do have".

All those quotes come from the cultists. Then what happens is that balancing material is inserted, the Freepers escalate, and bam you get an article on probation.

You see, they really think its a life and death struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine - and they've got guns. Eschoir (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been reading FR to try to understand this whole issue better, and what I see is a few crazy extreme nutjobs, but you are going to get that in any political discussion, one way or another. The majority of the people there seem pretty mild, very conservative for sure, but the majority sure isn't spouting off about liberal propaganda. Prodego  talk  02:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you make a telling point. It well may be the majority isn't spouting off about liberal propaganda anymore.  I don't know much about recent FR.  In fact, I remarked about the heavy emphasis on early years after I put the thing in chronologic order back in June.  I don't know its current relevance at all.  All the early stuff might be WP:UNDUE.  In fact, it might be useful to reorder the article in reverse chronological order.

However, we are stuck with two things - the RSs we have, and the volunteer shock troops FR periodically emits conducting holy war for the cause. Eschoir (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that pretty much sums it up. Prodego  talk  20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
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) 09:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Gon4z
has a new IP: 82.45.201.125. I reported him, admin User:Riana blocked him for 3 days, if he returns, please help keep an eye on him. --noclador (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, that looks like him. Will watch. Prodego  talk  18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic (again)
Sorry to bother you again, but edits yesterday evening were exceptionally contentious. Comments added to the article that were enclosed in  can't be described as anything other than baiting. I reported the matter yesterday for clarification at ArbCom and this is the apparent response. Please take the necessary action. Thanks. Samurai Commuter (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per arbcom, I can't do anything. Prodego  talk  22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

sw:wiki
Hi Predago. Could you please provide main page link of sw:wiki in en:wiki main page? If yes please add this:  . I'll be thanksful. See you...--Muddyb Blast Producer (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

PT
Thanks for that - forgot all about the new feature of protecting non-existant pages. I want to leave the OTRS and RTV ones there for record-keeping purposes (so I don't forget about them when the time is right to unprotect), but I agree with the Corey Delaney one. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought you might want to keep it as a list, so I left it for you. Glad to help. Coincidently, I set Corey Delaney's protection to 2 weeks, but feel free to change it as you see fit. Prodego  talk  16:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Metadata gadget
In this discussion, you mentioned that you'd be willing to implement the script at User:Outriggr/metadata.js as a gadget. The discussion's been up for a few days and no one has raised any objections, with a good number of people in support. Could you make this script into a gadget, then? It's the sort of script that can't do any harm, and as far as I know, the assessment system it uses is quite widely used, so I think it'd be a good idea just to make it a gadget and try it out.

Also, if you make this into a gadget, there's one small change to the script that improves its functionality a little that I brought up in the discussion. The first  conditional in the   function has   as one of its conditions; if you change this to   in the gadget version, it makes the script show the article assessment on diff pages and old revisions as well, a useful feature. An example of the script with this change is in my userspace at User:Pyrospirit/metadata.js.

Thanks, Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Give it 1 day, and then sure. Prodego  talk  01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, that sounds reasonable. Thanks. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 01:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bring it up on MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition please. Prodego  talk  02:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like Cacycle created Gadget proposals, so I'll bring it up there instead. Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
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) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)