Jump to content

User:Prodego/archive/87

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Prodego | archive

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 23 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Question

Hi, you did a revert of a bot on my talk page about the Signpost. From what I can tell this EdwardsBot gave this same message to quite a few editors before being stopped. Ok fine, but could you tell me what this was all about to begin with? From looking at the last post from the user of the bot it looks like I was part of a test run or something. Thanks for removing the message but maybe saying something would have been helpful. I've been having serious problems with a banned editor hitting my talk page so I've been checking the history of my talk page to see if anything has occurred which is how I found you and the bot. ;) You don't have to give a long explanation, even a dif would help, I just am interested in what happened. Thanks for helping out and thanks for your patience with this question. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A user decided to empty the entire signpost subscribers list, and require all users sign up again. But this wasn't discussed, and since everyone on that list had specifically requested they receive the signpost, this should not have been done without discussion. I reverted some of the (no longer correct) notifications that resubscribing would be required, which is what happened on your talk page. Prodego talk 20:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I understand and appreciate you taking the time to keep me subscribed like I wish to be. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster

User:Wee Curry Monster has made no attempt to remove any of the posts he signed with his name or ask for his old userpage to be deleted. His only problem with it seems to be when I used it in my defence against his false SPI case.--MFIreland • Talk 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster issue with me seems to be I added a NPOV tag to the Falkland Islands which he later removed and now he wants me blocked by making a false SPI case against me. On Talk:Falkland Islands he has signed some of his posts with the name XXXXXXX. The reason I referred to him as in my comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vintagekits is to let the admins know his old username and Wee Curry Monster are the same person.--MFIreland • Talk 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Former Name

Is it possible to delete that? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would start with a revdel, where you mention your full name (if that is your full name). It's very easy to see: doesn't take any off-wiki research to find it. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok yes, well, I'd forgotten about that it was so long ago. What is best going forward? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want that hidden for good, you'll have to request WP:Oversight to get rid of it. Doc talk 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Since you did use the name yourself, it doesn't meet the requirements to be removed via revdelete or oversight. So in short, I can't really do anything about that. Just don't use your name, and presumably there won't be problems. If there have been problems you may wish to discuss it with those with oversight and they will let you know if there is anything they can do. My suggestion is nothing. Prodego talk 20:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work

I notice you speedily deleted the terrible Pelvic congestion syndrome article. There was nothing correct there at all. That was a good decision; keep up the good work. --Diannaa (Talk) 07:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just curious - how did you notice it? (And I'm glad someone else looked in to it) Prodego talk 08:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I was patrolling with Huggle when the user placed the Prod, so I investigated. We need an article on this topic, but the one we had was totally unrelated to the facts. There are some reliable sources out there, including an article on the Johns Hopkins website. Maybe I will be writing an article today! Cheers, --Diannaa (Talk) 17:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually I was the one who prodded the article, the user just blanked it. Good work on the article, cheers! Prodego talk 00:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Pelvic congestion syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which you just deleted should not have been summarily removed in this fashion. Please reinstate it and nominate it at AfD instead! __meco (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Meco. I reviewed Prodego's decision last night. The article was totally devoid of facts, and I back up their decision to delete. Medical disinformation is dangerous. There are some reliable sources online so I will try my hand at writing a proper article on this topic today. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 17:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus969

In the interests of avoiding unnecessary drama and disruption, I think it would be best that you avoid interacting with Daedalus969 in matters that do not concern you, such as here. The phrase "Too bad it has expired" with regards to an interaction ban doesn't convey the best of intentions. Thanks, Prodego talk 07:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, You are right. Of course it is better to stay away from that, and I will, but what I said last night on AN/I was said to help out a user, who found themselves in a similar situation I was. It was not a disruption. The user was discussed on AN/I. I know the user and I added my input. The disruption was the user's reaction on it. There's something that is not right with Daedalus969, and it should be dealt with. Please see only this thread. Nobody should suffer as I did from that. Even that report about me on AN/I last night is enough to block the Daedalus969 because it demonstrates what it is about. If you are to respond, may I please ask you to do it here? I'd rather keep all mentions of that user off my talk page. I will not interact with that user, but honestly it is not me who should have been warned. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd let Deadalus worry about his problems, and you worry about your own. Prodego talk 18:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Persian Empire

Hi, you protected this redirect in 2009, and an editor has requested its unprotection at RFPP. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Threats

Prodego, if you have information concerning who has been posting the threats on this page, please e-mail me. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed you. Prodego talk 07:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

speedy

Kindly restore the two templates on Freshman members for a proper discussion. They are not routine housekeeping, especially considering that I have twi ce removed speedy templates from them. I am not necessarily proposing to keep them, but I'd like an explanation of the reasons. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be confused about what those templates were. Neither of those templates work, or were in use. They were just shells of a work in progress, abandoned in 2008. I'd be happy to restore if you would like to create them working of the history. Otherwise I was assuming you simply didn't notice the template was not complete or used. Prodego talk 20:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Curious

Prodego, I'm curious to know what part of correcting one endash, correcting a couple of vcites to the established style on the article after Doc James significant consensual repair of the article, and reverting once to correct multiple mistakes that included a typo in the lead, inconsistent citation style, and an edit unsupported by the source and per consensus on talk, as my only edits on that article in months, led you to respond thusly, relative to another editor reverting against all talk page consensus six times over three days and accusing Casliber of tag-teaming with a third editor. I can understand declining the block because he only reverted three times, and you might choose to ignore the three prior against all consensus, but I don't understand your post otherwise. I'm curious to know what you would have preferred I do differently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it didn't look like you at all tried to resolve the problem before bringing it to AN3. Prodego talk 05:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I see; I'm wondering if you read the FAR or the article talk page then (linked in the AN3); multiple editors have tried over many days, myself included. Now I'm even more curious; AN3 is the forum for dealing with edit warring; how else might we have tried, other than all that many editors already did on talk? I'd also appreciate a more direct response to my question of why you insinuated that I was engaging in the same behaviors in your post to AN3, linked above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Prodego, since his behaviors continue, I'm still interested in hearing your response: specifically, whether you reviewed the considerable efforts and feedback on talk from multiple editors and why you intimidated others had engaged in same behaviors and not attempted to resolve the dispute directly with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to be dealing with this. Prodego talk 05:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you know that admins are expected to justify their actions and respond to queries about them. Declining to block an edit warring editor in this case was reasonable (and not unexpected) since he had only three current reverts (against unanimous consensus on talk), and his previous three reverts were before the 24-hour period: it's within your discretion to decide not to block in that case. What is concerning, though, is that you apparently did not review the history linked on the AN3, but more, stated that the issues applied to both sides, incorrectly, and then additionally stated above that you believed others had not tried to resolve the problem (a review of the links provided on the AN3 report would have revealed that not to be the case). OK, so it looks like you goofed, and now don't want to answer my question: fine, moving along, but thanking you for leaving half a dozen editors to deal with edit warring that continues, while unfairly maligning other editors who tried to resolve the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying another approach, as as not to derail the RFA. Your decision (or better stated, your misplaced commentary, since the decision was within your discretion) contibuted to me spending four or five days dealing with an IDIDNTHEARTHAT edit-warrior before he (hopefully) got it (the article is still POV, but at least he's ceased for now, but a good half-dozen editors had to deal with it for days). From the Yinzland situation, I'm gathering that you may sometimes operate too fast, and that leaves content contributors dealing with disruptive editors. It takes a good deal of time to prepare an AN3; I understand that admins are often overworked, but on the complex cases, I'd ask that you take more time to investigate, and take greater care in your commentary. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree I didn't handle that optimally, and I ideally would have investigated more thoroughly, and rather than make blanket statements, leave each editor a tailored message. When I see long term editors involved in an edit warring type situation my reaction tends to be more 'you should know better, you can deal with this', rather than a more productive position that might actually help the situation. Even the best of us can make mistakes, be that getting involved in a revert war, or not so completely trying to fix problems instead of just getting rid of them. Prodego talk 19:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the considered response, Prodego; carry on, be well ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For unprotecting some pages in the true spirit of Wikipedia that anyone can edit. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI note

You might have noticed this already:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I made a substantially identical comment a few lines above that on ANI, so his copying the comment I made on his talk page was unneeded. Prodego talk 20:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Roger. When I see an admin doing stuff like he's up to, I wonder when and how he got to be an admin. There must have been a serious shortage at the time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes, no need to be mean. Prodego talk 05:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

MFIreland & Slow Revert War

MFIreland is repeatedly removing the UK flag from List of islands by area, against consensus see Talk:List of islands by area#Northern Ireland, diffs [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. I have no wish to get involved with him again, do you have any suggestions? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Like I said on the articles talk page Northern Ireland does not have a flag.--MFIreland • Talk 23:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems like the people on that talk page didn't agree with you MFIreland. Perhaps you should revert yourself and get consensus first. Prodego talk 01:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Messed up move

I'm very unhappy that I created extra work for you. I'm more unhappy that I'm not perfectly clear on what went wrong and how to avoid doing it in the future. I honestly don't recall exactly what happened - I'll make my best guess and then see if I can get some advice on how to avoid he problem in the future. On occasion, I run across a speedy delete that has wording to the effect that some page is holding up a move. The first one I ran across, I proceeded very carefully, and saw that I was supposed to check a box deleting a page, and some semi-automatic routine would take care of deleting a target and then moving a page onto the old name. It seemed to work fine, and I waited a couple days to make sure I hadn't done it wrong.

I've done a few of theses, and thought they were mainly housekeeping items. I won't do any more until I know what to look for. You suggested I should look at the talk page history for indications of a merge? If it is more work to explain this than it is worth, I'll simply refrain from doing those actions, although I would like to learn what to look for so I can do it right.--SPhilbrickT 23:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In potentially perfect timing, I see WDDZ (AM) with the template Db-move. I think this is the template that was on the Seek & Destroy article but I cannot see how to confirm that. If this is the type of situation where I need to take special care, I don't see exactly what to look for. The WDDZ (AM) page has no talk page, and not much of a history. Nothing jumps out at me. The article to be moved WEAE does have a talk page, and a moderately interesting history, as it has been moved multiple times. Perhaps this is one that is fine to carry out - can you tell me what signs I would look for to indicate that I should not do it?--SPhilbrickT 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Prodego. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sarah Palin's Target Map

You state that the inclusion of Sarah Palin's target map, showing Gabrielle Giffords as a target isn't a NPOV. Could you please expand on that? It is true that Sarah Palin included Gabrielle Giffords as a target on this map. Doesn't that make it somewhat apropos? --Absolut1966 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Further, the picture expands on the point made in the article, namely: "Media sources noted that Giffords was one of the U.S. Congresspersons whom Sarah Palin, a former candidate for Vice President of the U.S., had placed on a "target map" using images of gun sights" --Absolut1966 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for taking out the speedy tag on the shooting.

I think the article is ok since people have already cut out the reactions to the shooting article. That is ok as long as there is a sub-article.

Your idea that it is inappropriate to speedy delete is a great judgement. I can see if people hate the sub-article but there should be proper discussion, not speedy.

Thanks for your wisdom! Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

I already replied to you on my talk page with the sources. Thanks. Thief12 (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I have trouble with reftoolbar. Do you know, who should I see or what should I do? Today, randomly reftoolbar in my menu got disappeared even though I ticked that mode in my preferences.--NovaSkola 11:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu - ANI

I mentioned you here asking for an uninvolved admin to determine if the RM discussion should be to restore the status quo, or if it should take place after the status quo was restored. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, I wasn't aware that there had been prior discussion, and I don't have any problem with moving it back, I just think it would be easier to have the discussion first. If you want to move it back go right on ahead, absolutely no objections. Just be careful to make sure the talk pages stay with the right pages when you do the moves. Prodego talk 05:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As I said on ANI, I'm too involved to make the call -- that's why I asked for an opinion from someone unfamiliar with the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Botched page move, please fix

You appear not to have moved the talk page archives for Ubuntu. Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_1 and Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_2 are both archives of the dab page. Please can you fix them, and check if there are any others. You should also check the incoming links for the talk pages to see if you have damaged any links from other discussions. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • JHunterJ has undone your move so you don't need to fix the archives now. Could I ask that in future you check talk pages for previous discussions, and also that if in future you do decide unilaterally to move a page that you take the time to fix the talk page archives too? Thank you. You may also be interested to know about the Disambiguation Wikiproject, where you can get help and advice from editors experienced in the management of dab pages. DuncanHill (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for your response to my comment on the Emperor Norton talk page. There's so much to learn here, and largely everything I do is with the assumption it may be wrong. (Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.) Although I was probably overly concerned, I was still relieved to hear that I more or less got it right. I see that you're an administrator, so I'm sure you know your stuff. Your brief comment went a very long way to bolster my confidence. Again, thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

R3dstr3ak

You don't see a connection between the username R3dstr3ak and the added (and unsourced) "top secret" Project Redstreak at Verizon Wireless? Don't get me wrong, you're free to unblock as far as I'm concerned, but I see a connection. Acroterion (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do, but it is just not spam. Choosing your username to be what you want to write about isn't too uncommon. In any case he shouldn't be writing that with no sources, but no one ever told him that. Prodego talk 05:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
That's reasonable. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Another question

In connection with your kind offer to help me if I needed advice, I'd like to ask you a question. I noticed numerous discrepancies in the opening paragraphs of articles about countries. I perused WP:MOS, and several other pages I figured may be revelant. Unable to find a definative answer, I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. After I did this, it occured to me that as it is a talk page, it may be inappropriate to have asked there question there (i.e. the talk page should be used to discuss the policy, rather than ask questions about it). Should I instead ask at the help desk, and if so, should I remove my question from the talk page? Thank you in advance, and I apologize if I am being a nuisance. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/87&oldid=1073629101"