User:Prodego/archive/78

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:BD2412/200,000th edit party
You're invited, of course! bd2412 T 03:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a Couple of Questions and Comments
First, I'd like to say that your user page is so cute. I've never seen one with a mood meter, etc. So many stars! One question, where in your opinion is the best place for a a semi-newbie to start? How do editors get those templates on their pages? Some have their whole user page filled with them. And my last question is, I just recently visited the Persian People page and noticed it's on such high alert. I'm Persian-American by the way. What's with all the vandalism and apparent hijacking? I guess you put it under protection now?--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I will take up some of your suggestions and look into Wikipedia's beginner's guide for editing. I don't plan on joining a discussion right now on the Persian People page. I was just curious as to why there was so much vandalizing/warring on that page. From the last time I checked that page, probably several months ago, there seemed to be a sudden rise in warring. Strange. Anyways, thanks again.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note
Hey. I've undone your block on Tadija, as he was genuinely reverting the sock of a banned user. I've blocked him before for revert-warring, but probably should have undone that block as well as on that occasion he was, yes, reverting another Sarandioti sock. As to the editing restriction you imposed - what to do with that is up to you. Hope this is OK, let me know if it's not. Best, Moreschi (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good restriction, Prodego, long overdue. I haven't followed the story lately, but the persistent pointless sterile edit warring over "right"/"wrong" names and Kosovo<=>Serbia under the guise of "NPOV" some time ago all over Wikipedia (and at times extending to Commons) was quite telling. User:Ev has long tried to moderate the situation peacefully, to no avail. Colchicum (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarandioti
It was him again! Sarandioti! I was adding new infobox, that report was faked... You can see that that is not real order of happening. There was more edits there. Also, i forgot a bit about my restriction... Sorry... :) :) :) I never have restriction before. Will not happen again.

Thanks for unblock. That Sarandioti... Tadija (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!


 Lourie Pieterse  is wishing you Happy Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide, Litha, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

"The greatest gift they'll get this year is life." ~ Bob Geldof & Midge Ure Spread the hugs & cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

+1?
Not quite sure what this edit was supposed to mean. Explanation please? -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 17:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See +1. Prodego  talk  17:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought so, but just wanted to confirm. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 17:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems with User on Karl Rove
Hello, You were involved in commenting on the edit warring on the Karl Rove page several weeks ago, which is why I'm coming to you. You are familiar with the continuing problems.

Apparently Chhe (talk) is back to edit warring on the Karl Rove page. He is also making uncivil comments about me (again) in the edit summaries and on the Karl Rove talk page, referring to a block I had last summer. Ancient history, etc. He just reverted an edit I did and he did not use the talk page. This is a pattern with him. He makes no contribution to the page, doesn't check references, etc., does not participate in discussion, and then he comes along and reverts. I have been using the holiday time I have to make corrections to the article, delete unsourced material, I have been using the talk page and the edit summaries, and now he's threatening me with the 3 revert rule. I've not reverted anything. And frankly, I am sick and tired of his uncivil behavior and continuing to refer to the ancient history of my block as if I've committed some vast diabolical crime. I've asked him to stop and he persists. I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at this help once again.

  Malke 2010  21:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a few minutes. Prodego  talk  21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what I can say here except 'discuss it on the talk page'. Prodego  talk  22:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well that is the problem. Chhe does not discuss on the talk page ever.  He simply comes in reverts edits, makes uncivil comments, etc.  I have been using the talk page, he never comes round to that, etc.  It's always after the fact. Thanks,  Malke  2010  22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
Hello,

Were you aware when you made this edit that the page was fully protected? If so, were you making this change as an uninvolved administrator responding to consensus or as an editor acting on your own behalf? Oren0 (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @ - I do agree with the tag, but my concern is with the addition of it to a protected page. It's worth noting that there was some degree of revert warring over the tag and therefore it seems that adding the tag after protection might be inappropriate, as it gives you as an admin an unfair upper hand in the state of the page.  Oren0 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While you are on wikibreak
Peruse [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=334272491#Disturbing_Behaviors. the prior context of discussion] on Jimbo Wale's page.

And, yes, I assure you I know precisely what I am doing rhetorically, and am very cognizant of the issue of dignity &mdash; And how best one might maintain that dignity ... is not to continue on a path which does not fit the occasion.

Preventing further damage is the most respectful thing one can do. And beyond that, there is a limit to the license of affronted dignity. It has been reached. 1,000 words is enough on Jimbo's page given it is clear an inappropriate stance has been chosen. (More illumination upon request &mdash; but otherwise, no reply necessary.) Proofreader77 (interact) 06:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Specifically consider: this response. Proofreader77 (interact) 06:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If Jimbo Wales chooses to ignore the message, he may do so, if he chooses to remove it, he may do so as well. But there is no need to reply to a comment left on his page for him if you don't have an answer that will be helpful to the original commenter. If the discussion becomes disruptive, it will dealt with appropriately. Prodego  talk  06:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The disruption is being dealt with appropriately. You have not been part of the discussion. Proofreader77 (interact) 06:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the comment does not concern you, you should not be concerned with it. Therefore, I am asking you to please respect David Tombe's comment. It being on that page does not give it any more weight then it does anywhere else, it does not take up space, or have any other negative effect. I, and it would seem most other editors do not see a problem with that particular comment. So it would be best if you stopped challenging it, since it is not going to be removed, and discussing it surely would cause even more disruption of Jimbo's talk page then the original message could. Prodego  talk  07:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (a) Reread again this response from Jimbo recently archived (b) then discuss it with John Vandenberg and (c) ponder that I have told you I know what I am doing with respect to the rhetorical dynamic &mdash; in the context of the current fundraising drive. (Mostly you will see me making reference to that).  -- Proofreader77 (interact)  07:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (a) The archived section isn't really all that related to this one, and jimbo can ignore it or remove it if he wants (b) Discuss what with him, and why? (c) I have no idea what "rhetorical dynamic" you are referring to, nor do I see what the fundraising drive has to with any of this. Please, if you could, explain this, because I am quite interested in what it is you are trying to do here. Prodego  talk  07:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Situation analysis

 * Hell In a Bucket and David Tombe are continuing a discussion which it is not the time or place for ... after Jimbo has told David to walk away. (How many times do you expect Mr. Wales to have to do that?) Filling up the talk page in a loop of which no one is interested in now is not a useful thing ... But promoting the fundraising in the midst of whatever foolishness is going on ... lightening the mood, is a good thing.


 * It could all be hat/hab collapsed. Perhaps you'd like to do that. If you won't I can continue to promote the fundraising drive to to disrupt the drama of the inappropriate loop of discussion ... during the holiday season.... which Jimbo has made clear he is tired of. -- Proofreader77 (interact)  07:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are going to "disrupt the drama". You are going to try to stop what you see as disruption... with disruption. Surely you can't mean that. Prodego  talk  07:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk with John

 * John Vandenberg. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 07:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will do that, however, I'd ask that you please not leave any more comments on Jimbo's talk page until after John and I finish talking. Is that ok with you? One of us will of course let you know when that is. Prodego  talk  07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask you direct John's attention to my comments here, as well. And inform him you are walking into something while on wikibreak and interfering in a rhetorical situation you have not been observing. Proofreader77 (interact) 07:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left a link to this section. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  07:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, happy holidays. :-) (It has been a beautiful December. Don't worry, it will continue that way ... even if strangely. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 07:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

-- Proofreader77 (interact) 07:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - My suggestion is hat/hab collapse ... directing discussion of that topic to WP:Village pump (policy) etc

IMO, David Tombe, Hell in a Bucket and Proofreader77 should all move along. Change doesn't happen on Jimbo's talk page, and David is starting to complain about his case again, and talk about Jehochman again. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, moving along is exactly what should be done here. The step that concerns you Proofreader, is that you should move along. That means not reviving up these arguments with Hell in a Bucket and David Tombe. That doesn't mean that their comments are perfect either. But your concern should be about your own comments, rather than any of theirs. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  07:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently your remedies didn't work. I have ben warned on Prodegos page if we post there anymore we will get blocked []. You say you can fix it, then do so. I'm getting tired of his crap and will not stay silenet much longer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Wikipedia e-mail - Holiday suggestion ...
(regarding the current matter re User talk:Jimbo Wales) Do you, User:Prodego, affirm or withdraw this message on Proofreader77 posted while acting under administrator authority? -- Proofreader77 (interact) 22:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Prodego please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Proofreader77....Again --Tombaker321 (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Collapse box on Slim Virgin's talk
That's interesting ... The reason I added a collapse box, is because the image itself breaks through the bottom of the page formatting. (Which it doesn't when in a collapse box.)

If you don't mind me asking, what operating system/brower are you using? (I'm using Foxfire 3, but have checked it with Google Chrome and Explorer. Note: Operating system XP) Proofreader77 (interact) 11:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing of a protected page
You've tagged Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident through protection, and made no justification for it on talk. That doesn't seem right. I'm sure you are well aware that there is no consensus on the presence of the talk. I think you should reverse your action. At the very least, you should explain it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you see above @ ? I would tend to agree that reverting to the wrong version is probably the safest course of action. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 22:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there is edit warring over the tag, doesn't that inherently mean that there is a dispute over the neutrality of the page? If not, I'll add that I personally dispute it. Given both of those points, and that the tag indicates that there is a dispute over the neutrality of the article and not that the article isn't neutral, it would seem to me that the tag is obviously appropriate. I have absolutely no interest in withholding information from the readers for no reason. It is an improvement to the encyclopedia. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that you are using your tools to undo an edit that a user without the same ability made prior to the protection. Given that you're also intimating you are personally disputing the neutrality (rather than simply enacting a consensus that exists on the talk page to maintain the tag) this seems even less on. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 22:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you disagreeing with the following statement: "If there is a dispute over the neutrality the page should be tagged with neutrality". Yes or no? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No - not really - and I won't belabour the point as I personally don't care that much and am trying to stay away from the climategate clusterfuck, just playing devil's advocate here. Perhaps make a section on the talk page to generate consensus after-the-fact if you're not going to self-revert. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 22:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've edited through protection to impose a tag for your own reasons, rather than as a general neutral admin action . That isn't permissible. Please revert yourself before I bring this up at ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please bring it up on ANI. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents William M. Connolley (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * enjoy! This is the reason climate articles are mostly abandoned by admins. There aren't many willing to put up with the drama and disruption. tedder (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You failed. 2/0 is doing a decent job though William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited that page. I'll be happy to put a tag on it if I see any evidence whatever that the neutrality is disputed by even one party. We've firmly established that the tag doesn't mean the page isn't neutral, just that someone thinks it isn't, and then has to justify why on the talk for it to stay, or better, propose fixes that get consensus. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What, in your view, is wrong? I've certainly never edited the page, and there certainly is a neutrality dispute. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The assertion that if even one person thinks the page is non-neutral it should be tagged is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with WJC on the technical point. If our policy is that a single editor can assert that an article's neutrality is disputed, then, by definition, any editor could add the tag to every article here. I am fairly sure we would conclude that was not a desirable option. However, having agreed with the technical point, I am in agreement with the substance, which is that the addition of the tag doesn't require unanimity, nor consensus nor even majority. The threshold should be much lower, and arguably could be as low as a single editor making a plausible case (as opposed to a mere assertion), but whatever the minimum hurdle might be, it has certainly been cleared with room to spare. -- SPhilbrick  T  02:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant. Although I did a poor job of saying. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that it has become routine for the skeptics who lose the argument over inclusion of text within the pages to get their "revenge" by adding a POV template to the page. If your argument was allowed to stand - and on most pages it isn't - all the GW pages would have permanent POV templates. It is trivial to rouse up a few skeptics who will add text to the talk page that will look plausible to outsiders William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you are asserting that there is no dispute. Is that the case? Because if not, the objective tag that indicates the presence of a dispute should also be there. If you are asserting that there is no dispute, then I would have to disagree with you there... I agree that, clearly, it would be ridiculous to suggest that a single editor trollingly disputing something doesn't warrant the tag. But it also can't be said that just because a majority of people agree with each other ('Dispute? There's no dispute! We're clearly right!'), the dispute doesn't in fact exist - because it does. A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  22:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 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) 02:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment
- Sorry didn't relize it was a blog. But please do something to stop the harrassment against me. TY Armorbearer777 (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Kosovo massacres
Can you help with this? (User_talk:Mladifilozof). Subject is questionable, i would love your opinion there. All best, T. Tadija (talk)


 * Please, if you wanted to solve this problem corectly, look at the old version of Massacres in Kosovo article, before Tadija started to pushing in general information, unrelated to article name and topic (no massacre mentioned, just different war crimes). After that, I was forced to start new article under more precised name (Massacres of Albanians in the Kosovo War). Please, see talk page for further explanations. Thanx.--Mladifilozof (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, can you tell me what is POV in article, to correct it? --Mladifilozof (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is regular to have more thematically specific articles, beside general one (for example: War crimes in Yugoslavia during WWII, and more specific one: Holocaust in Yugoslavia). It is only important to be objective and use reliable sources.--Mladifilozof (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

POTD
I just realized that I didn't specify if the habitation was recent or early. Could you please place the word "early" before the word "human"? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Non english
Not to be rude, but this, was a pretty inappropriate deletion rationale, people do translate, thats why we have WP:PNT-- Jac 16888 Talk 17:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was tagged A7, and since I can't read it, (and neither could anyone I asked), I opted to trust the person who tagged the page and delete it. However, I can't in good faith use that as a deletion reason, and as you showed. WP:PNT has pages going back to April. You are right that the deletion reason isn't that appropriate.  Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that it was speedy tagged before you deleted it, I'm not arguing it shouldn't have been deleted. Although for the record, the pages on PNT going back to april are ones which have been translated and need expert cleanup. The oldest completely non english page is only a couple of weeeks old-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)