User:Prodego/archive/77

T3 of sock templates
Hey, I noticed you removed the t3 templates from several sock templates and asked for it to go to TFD. I understand, but you may not have been aware that these were deprecated after a fairly detailed discussion at SPI. Do you really think they need a full seven day discussion? Under T3, they were required to remain posted for 7 days - even though they are no longer in use. If you still think they need to go to TFD, I'll be glad to send them there but we've been trying to sort out the very messy sock tag situation and this just makes it more complicated for no apparent reason.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

db-t3
It seems you are not familiar with speedy criterion db-t3. I have reverted your edit to Template:CheckedPuppeteer. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say I've come across it a few time in the past. The wording of the templates are different, thus, so the templates are different, thus t3 does not apply. If you read WP:CSD, you can see that any editor who isn't the author of the page in question may remove the speedy tag, which I did. However, you are not allowed to retag the page once someone has objected to the speedy deletion. I declined your speedy deletion request, the proper procedure if you disagree with my decision is to use WP:TfD, not to retag the page. Prodego  talk  21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should have said this in the edit summary. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, 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

Re:Chzz
Seriously? He took it to AN and got the userright. I did not give it to him, an editor unrelated to myself or him gave it to him. Without request, just review. You are seeming to have some ownership issues with edit filter. Considering that I consider you a good Wikimedian that is very helpful, you perhaps need to take that into consideration. Opposing someone's RfA because you didn't approve of edit filter is, frankly, nonsense. We can talk about this on IRC later or onwiki here. Keegan (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm here about the same thing. Could you come back to Requests for adminship/Chzz and justify your position and respond to the comments, because this doesn't look right. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/213
Could you add something to this filter? The vandal's been doing a hell of a lot of different edits that are still vandalism but not necessarily being caught by the filter because there's no string being triggered. and are the two most recent IPs utilizing his new MO. Semiprotecting every single article that these two IPs have vandalized would defeat the purpose of the encyclopedia. Can these blankings and reference removals in any way be blocked by this filter or another one?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 05:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like it, unless there is some pattern. Prodego  talk  11:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

erm... excuse me?
I'm a vandal now? Kafziel Complaint Department 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The vandalism was the addition of 'velvet' (long story on that). I'm not sure how the image got reverted too, I'll fix that. Prodego  talk  20:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks! Kafziel Complaint Department 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Prodego  talk  21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Redaction question
Responded via e-mail. -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rubeus Hagrid
Spamming the filter log for no reason is pretty silly. Just protect the article. Wknight94 talk  01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather block the IPs so that when the source of the vandalism changes the article target (which they will do once the page gets protected) the crowd can't just swarm elsewhere. Prodego  talk  01:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They're clicking on a button somewhere that automatically vandalizes. If they were going to change the button's target, they would've done it by now.   Wknight94  talk  01:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The way it usually works is that someone spams a link (often to an imageboard like 4chan) and tells people to click save. Browsers don't usually allow the sort of cross site scripting that would allow there to be an automatic vandalism button. If you don't block the IPs, the person will change their spam link, and in a few minutes, it will be that link that people are clicking. And then again, and again, etc. Prodego  talk  02:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, well now the filter isn't even stopping them. And you're not the one blocking and reverting - you're putting the burden on the rest of us.   Wknight94  talk  02:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working with User:J.delanoy and User:Chris G, feel free to not do anything. Prodego talk  02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely there's a better way to do this than deliberately allowing vandalism in a mainspace article...? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"not"
I'm 99.99% sure you missed the word "not" in this post. Just thought I'd let you know.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Prodego  talk  02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI OS
To answer your query over at ANI, apprently it was. Cheers, GiantSnowman 00:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While DerHexer is a steward, he does not have oversight at enwiki locally, so he would not normally oversight things on enwiki. Therefore, I do not believe it was he. Prodego  talk  00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Decline
Just wondering why speedy was declined on SBO Custom Guitars. I don't mind if it gets rejected though, because it isn't going to pass AFD anyway.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 01:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't answer for Prodego, and you may well be right about the article's future at AfD--but this article has been around for a while, and no admin will take the claim of this speedy seriously, that no importance is claimed. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the company showed that it is notable? I don't see why admins don't take it seriously, how long an article has been around doesn't mean it has notability.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 02:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look any less notable than any other guitar company, its something that would be better dealt with at AfD. Prodego  talk  02:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins do take things seriously; I have no doubt that a speedy would be denied by most administrators. The article has been up for a while, different editors have worked on it, at least the suggestion is made that these guitars are worthwhile and thus the company notable--speedy deletion is usually reserved for more obvious candidates. Thanks, and thanks Prodego for your edits and leaving us some room on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of Plushophile
I hadn't noticed that plushophilia had deleted revisions, so if that's the basis for your turning down the db-move, then I request that you merge the histories of the two pages and redelete the versions from 2007. Plushophile was 'kept' at a recent AfD (Articles for deletion/Plushophile), though its content should be moved over to plushophilia, in keeping with our convention of having articles on pyromania and such, and not pyromaniacs.--Father Goose (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll move it, but looking at the history, the pages should not be merged - the Phushophile artile is not based on the Plushophilia article, so it wouldn't be right to combine them. That is the part that was unclear, thanks for clearing it up. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bite
Thanks for the note, but I disagree with your assessment. There were comments on the talk page, but the new editor continued to revert, and only when the 3RR notice went up did he start actually discussing rather than just reverting. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree in principle that the method you are advocating is the correct one, in my opinion in practice it doesn't work. What I've seen with new editors that even when you try to explain them how Wikipedia works, and how they can contribute effectively to Wikipedia, they continue reverting, until there is some sort of punishment involved.  At that point, they start to read the policies, and start discussing, and becoming a valuable contributer to the project. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for some, doesn't work with a lot of others. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See, it doesn't work.  Even with all the discussion, he doesn't get it, and your comments to him emboldened him to break policy. I'm not going to revert now, but I will tomorrow, because his edits are just wrong, and not in line with Wikipedia policy.  I would recommend that you revert him instead.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see if this editor ever even spends the time to read the policies, even when we tell him nicely. I doubt it, since he believes that there is a Truth (capital T) which is not a helpful way of editing.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even with all the nice discussion and guidance, he's bypassed 3RR a second time. Time for a block?  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

jeff3000 its you who does not get it. its you who does not want a compromise rather you have an attitude of "my way or the highway"

that attitude is horrible for wikipedia ReligionScholar (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
In light of this comment you made, which I have cited at ANI, please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AN
Hey, could you weigh in at this AN thread if possible? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate the barnstar and the comment. Some days it feels like pushing mountains, but some days it works.

I hope your holiday is tasty and peaceful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

People of the Book
See WP:AN3. Looks like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT regarding our sourcing policies. I've given ReligionScholar an extra-super-special final warning, but I doubt that it will do any good. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Filter 131
Please see Talk:Muhammad and let us know when we can expect this filter to be re-enabled, and if not, why not. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Filter 263
FYI, I have re-enabled filter 263, minus the autoconfirmed (per your change) and with Serafin-specific terms. The issues arose only because of my adding more general search terms on the 29th. Prior to that, the hits were 100% accurate based on user-specific abuse. Cheers. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  04:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith edit on your part

 * You had no right to remove my comment, as you closed it out prematurely as I still had something to say. That not only was bad faith but also against policy. Thanks alot, please reopen and put my comment back in. If you want to close it out AFTER my comment, fine. But you closed it out when I was typing. I had just commented two seconds ago before the close out and was not finished. I expect my comment to be reinstated. And the heading to the section on my talk page is badfaith as well, as people who have my talk page on their watchlist will now assume I've been brought to AN/I. I expect better communication in the future or stay off my talk page.Camelbinky (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I closed the discussion as the situation had been decided as not requiring admin action, and comments that were being made there no longer were related to the topic of the thread. Threads are not always kept open until everyone had said everything they would like to about anything they want. Rather than having the thread continue into an unconstructive argument, it is better to end it now. I'm not sure I follow how the name of this section suggests anything except that it related to ANI, but if you want to change the title, go ahead. However, recall that you do not own your talk page. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've undone your edit. Your post-closing comments added nothing constructive to the debate, and the thread was not going anywhere. Please let the matter rest. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 23:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually common usage is that a user does have lots more "ownership" over their talk page than elsewhere. I know because I have successfully defended and expanded those rights at the Village pump (policy) and (proposal) many times. Talk page guidelines specifically state that you are not to do anything on a talk page that could cause embarrasement to the user, your using the AN/I title did, because I said it did cause me embarrassment. I dont need your "permission" to change the title. I'm deleting the entire thread anyways. And per my right I am now asking you to stay off my talk page, and yes it is my right to say and enforce that. I expect you to not post to it again. I will also keep an eye on your future actions at AN/I regarding closing out discussions, I have successfully reopened many discussions that are closed out by editors like you who close out just because they dont like what is being discussed. I find your actions in bad faith and unwiki-like.Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Users are given a large amount of leeway over what they may do on their talk pages. Pretty much anything that does not misrepresent the comments of other users is permitted there. What you may not do is prohibit certain users from contacting you. You should remember to assume good faith yourself, I certainly don't close discussions just because I "dislike what is being discussed". Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  00:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually you can tell another user not to post on your own talk page and the other editor is expected to comply with that wish. To continue to post, as you have after I asked you to stop, is the very definition of harrassment. Again- stop posting on my talk page. Next time I will take you to the wikittequite board, and if you continue after that to AN/I. I find it hilarious that this started on a thread about a user having templates on his/her page that werent true, and you have one saying you're on wiki-break but obviously are spending quite a bit of time arguing with me. I dont want to argue with you, it was an edit conflict that allowed your closing to happen before my second post was able to get in, then I had to do actual work at work and for that my comments are excluded? You're not the AN/I police and my comments were valid and should have been allowed to be in there. When I have time I'll reopen the topic at the VPP so those interested may discuss the topic of user templates on pages and rude people who attempt to butt their noses in to other user's pages. If you feel you need to respond in order to have the last word, do it here on your talk page, do not take it to mine. I do not wish to have non-encyclopedic-related discussions with you and my talk page is not the place for it.Camelbinky (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While users have a lot of freedom with their talk page, one thing they can not do is change the purpose of the page. The purpose of a user's talk page is to engage in discussion with that user. Because of that, you can not 'ban' certain users from contacting you. You are free to remove any comments you wish - although removing comments that raise issues without addressing them can be problematic. Your comment on ANI was inflammatory and I had archived the thread exactly because the comments were becoming bickering instead of a constructive discussion. If you want to discuss a change to the policy that users may use the 'Service awards' however they would like, Village Pump/Policy would be the place to do it. So long as you believe I have acted inappropriately, I will try to resolve the issues you have with my actions via discussion with you, and I will use your talk page for that. Its purpose is communicating with you, so it is the appropriate place for this discussion. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  01:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have re-enabled filter 167
Prodego, I think you missed the point of the filter. It wasn't set up just so we could be anal. Any submission that fails to include the submission template is actually lost forever. No one will ever see it. It will never be reviewed. It will never be turned into an article and the submitter will never get any feedback on it. The only way to fix this is to spend about a half-hour (probably much longer now, as that was when there were only a few hundred submissions to comb through) looking for the botched submissions with AWB. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

My inappropriate template use
I have just commented on Village_pump_(policy) and asked for more info. After saving I noticed the hover text over the template says "Avoid weasel words". My sincere apologies if this causes offence. All I meant was to ask you who is working on it, in a clever, wannabe Wikipedian way! As soon as I saw it I remembered seeing something along the way in Help about "not templating the old hands", so again, my apologies. Kind regards, Bricaniwi (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Accounts en-wiki mailing list
Hi Prodego, If I send you an email; will you re-add me to the mailing list? Thanks, Kate (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't seem to have a record of you ever having been on the list. Go ahead and email me, you haven't changed your username, have you? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  14:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was on the mailing list as user:Javert. I'm on a public connection right now, so I'll send you an email when I return home. Thanks, Kate (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)