User:Prodego/archive/76

Quadski
I sugest tagging the second paragraph with. That sounds like it is from a product brochure. "...all at just the touch of a button."Job (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

240
Uop til now. I have disabled it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC).

Filter 131
Less than a day after you disabled the filter, the precise disruption it prevents began anew.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is was reverted in 1 minute and has only happened 1 time was somewhat my point. Prodego  talk  18:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 76 hits on a filter that only guards 2 articles is a lot. Look through the history of Temple garment and Mohammed before and after that filter came into effect, and look at how well it curbed disruption.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That filter has existed 5 months, that is 76 hits over 150 days. Prodego  talk  18:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right: it has prevented an edit-war every 48 hours. That's pretty good.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's vandalism, block them. If it isn't, then there shouldn't be a filter. Prodego  talk  18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You truly underestimate the disruptive potential of two large, organized religions that educate their members that certain images are blasphemous. It's millions of people all over the globe that want to remove the images without any regard to Wikipedia guidelines or policies. There were discussions on both the Temple garment and Mohammed talk pages where editors of both articles discussed the chronic disruption and agreed to have the filters put in place. Undoing that consensus without discussion is problematic. The other choice is permanent semi-protection on both articles, and this filter is certainly better than that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

 * Opinion essay: White Barbarian
 * Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
 * Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
 * News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you won't lift a finger
Transhumanist is still calling me a liar. But that's okay, right? → ROUX   ₪  14:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and I was right. Good job, you are a veritable credit to the admin corps. → ROUX   ₪  14:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent job, he's still calling me a liar! WELL DONE PRODEGO YOU ARE SO GOOD AT ADMINSHIP! → ROUX   ₪  19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Blackskin gadget
The Blackskin gadget is very interesting. But would it be possible to also have the background of templates appear black as well? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Lemmiwinks2/monobook.css achieves what I wanted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
I thought I came to Wikipedia today to find humour, but instead I found an atmosphere similar to a soon-to-be-bankrupt call center. :( -- A3RO (mailbox)  04:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Appropriateness police?
I'm not convinced that deleting other people's posts to AN/I with a self-appointed judge and jury of "appropriateness" all contained betwix thine own ears is in your best interests, frankly. Just saying. Keeper |  76  04:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My interest is to handle things in the manner that causes the least drama. I have no comment here, except to say that if that isn't your intention, don't involve yourself. Prodego  talk  04:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been around long enough to know that, generally speaking, deleting someone else's posts and deciding arbitrarily that they are "inappropriate" is usually not a "drama reducer", right? A3RO is harmless, probably intoxicated, doesn't need blocking, that gets explained on AN/I, all of this goes gently into that good night.  That's all that needed to be said on AN/I, as I tried to do except I edit conflicted with you.  It would have been quickly closed/archived, without the added drama of "I'm removing potential drama".  Have a nice evening,  Keeper  |  76  04:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Posting:
 * I'll do the block now, make it a week long, and see if you want to redeem any of your previous years' worth of thousands of positive contribs after?
 * Or perhaps hit that little "x" in the corner of your browser window before you really embarrass yourself?
 * I just don't want you to go too far overboard and draw the ire of another, how should I put it, hard-assed? - admin.
 * and I'm done. Unwatchlisting your page. Enjoy the remainder of your night, whatever pieces you may or may not remember in the morning.
 * are all far more likely to have a negative affect than a positive one. The best way to handle this would have been to ignore it. Given that it is too late for that, disengaging and returning later is best for everyone involved. Prodego  talk  04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed as well as on Iridescent's page. Have a nice evening, I'm out.  Keeper  |  76  04:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy's Jazz Club
Are we using "Footnotes" instead of "References" now? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I rewrote it from where it was before you or AJC (the user) edited it, I must have forgotten to readd that change. References is (as far as I remember anyway) correct, I'll rechange it when I am done, or you can go ahead. Sorry about that! Prodego  talk  02:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do it.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I am discussing it with User:AndysJazzClub on IRC. Prodego  talk  02:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had to revert a huge copyvio he just added. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its more promotional than a copyvio, editing is collaborating after all, I'm working with him, so I assure you it will not stay that way. Encourage, don't discourage those willing to help, even if they are misguided. Prodego  talk  02:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's copied from the club's web page.  That makes it a copyright violation.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, but since it is virtually guaranteed this person represents them, they probably legally can do it. Lets not get caught up in copyright paranoia either - so long as they have good intentions, we should try to work with them to make sure that we have the best article we can. Prodego  talk  02:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it appropriate that you deleted my good faith comments from another person's Talk page, least of all without discussion with me. In addition, could you please restore the table of contents to your Talk page, I had to use a page search to find this paragraph. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He asked me if he could remove the warnings, which he can. But he asked me to do it for him, because he wasn't comfortable doing so himself, so I did. When dealing with the subjects (or owners of the subject, as it were) of articles, it is important to handle any issues they have courteously and politely. A personalized note (or in this case, an IRC chat with them) is always a better option then a template, although either could of course be removed if the user had so desired. As for the TOC, it messes up the alignment at the top of the page, which I why I removed it. Since this is the last section it shouldn't be that hard to find (just hit the "end" key) but I'll archive the page so its a bit less lengthy. Hopefully that will make things easier. Prodego  talk  23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

DRV:Colorado ballon incident
I didn't get a chance to chime in at Deletion review/Log/2009 October 18 but if I did, I would've endorsed the closure as a stellar example of following the processes and procedures on this page. Yes, it was out of process, and yes, by doing this he opened himself up to being burned at the stake for making a mistake. However, his actions were approved resoundingly by acclaimantion, both in the DRV and on his talk page with the barnstar and follow-on endorsements of the barnstar. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this something you should be telling Bigtimepeace, not me? Prodego  talk  02:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

WP:3RR - Floydian
Diffs posted. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I left him a note, and will watch him myself now. Prodego  talk  20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi - sorry - was I being ridiculous at AN/I? Just not sure what you meant. Thanks. 7 03:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I said 'This'. I did not specify any person, action, or thing. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To directly respond, I think your comment is perfectly fine, and it is the right thing to do. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I was just trying to figure out if you thought my request for oversight was out of line, or the people calling the secret service, or the original poster's comments.  7  03:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The middle one. The long response is that I am generally against reporting such threats, unless they are particularly credible. However, if there is a threat that is worth reporting, you do not make a huge kerfluffle on ANI over it, because if you do that, then we are going to get trolled out of existence once people realize all they need to do is make an edit saying "I am going to kill <x>" and we will run around panicking. Am I saying that particular edit shouldn't have been reported? No. Am I saying that was absolutely the wrong way to handle that edit - yes. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What other way to handle the situation would you suggest? I understand your opinion, but your statement was hardly appropriate. You weren't obligated to chime in, and if you didn't feel that it was being handled right, why not say that exactly, rather than interrupt in a frankly rude manner.  Grsz 11  03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The best way to do handle that would have been to contact Oversights (as explained at WP:RFO), and either a) report it yourself, if you feel it is needed, or b) leave a note in your email to the oversights about how you are unsure if it should be reported, and let them handle it. As for why I made such a blunt comment - that's because I'm a grouchy curmudgeon, and I can be that way sometimes. I apologize. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, no worries, we all can be. I do understand that it is a difficult situation, with really no perfect chain of actions.  Grsz 11  03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)