User:Prodego/archive/27
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Prodego. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Greetings, old friend - I've started a proposal to change the software to prevent mainspace pages from being saved unless they contain a category. Please offer your thoughts! bd2412 T 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 7th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 32 | 7 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: Monobook
Thanks much for fixing it for me. (and Essjay's as well, so others won't have the same problem) Kalani [talk] 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 14th
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 33 | 14 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 06:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
9800?
If there's an award for excellent use of arbitrary numbers, I'll make sure you receive one promptly. Anyway, thanks. And keep up the good adminship...ness. Nufy8 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Prodego, using AWB you tagged the above pages with {{oldafdfull}}, but this appears to be an error. Although these articles were mentioned in the AfD discussion as examples, they were not nominated for deletion. I haven't removed the templates because I wanted to check with you first in the event I am not seeing the reason why these were tagged. Thanks, Accurizer 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
My RFA
Thank you for nominating me, Prodego. I accept. I've filled in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TomTheHand. TomTheHand 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please replace the map under Geographical distribution with the one I made. I used several credible sources and the other user are being very unreasonable and one for sure has an agenda (for example, if you look at the history, user Zaparodjik says that Turks will always fight Kurds and Armenians. He also seems to be a pan-Turk, just see the discussion page.) Anyway, can you replace the map that is currently there with this map (which is the consensus version: [1] This would be greatly appreciated, thank you.Khosrow II 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Turkic_language_map3.PNG){kind=link}
- Thank you.Khosrow II 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I created the John Vogel page, and everything I put on there is true as it is right now. I requested protection because someone else insisted on vandalizing the page.
Okay thanks. There is no vandalism now because I reverted it back to the way it was. L T Dangerous insisted on deleting the second image of Johnny Cage, who is referenced in the article. Continually deleting the picture is vandalism, right?
Alright, but it seems as though he is going to continue to edit it, thus provoking an edit war.
L T Dangerous would also be guilty of that. I opened a discussion on the talk page, but she is not complying.
- Pardon me for intruding on this private conversation and all that but I rather thought Wikipedia existed for all users to edit and add information to. --L T Dangerous 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a new discussion that I am referring to. I don't like how she removed the Johnny Cage picture. Either both Reiko and Cage should stay or both should go as they are both equally important to the article.
- With regards to the message left on my talk page: no problem at all, I'm happy to comply. I was getting a tad worried about the fact the history page could have become huge. --L T Dangerous 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey L T Dangerous, keep it the way it is now. It looks good now. Please leave it alone.....
Hey Prodego, the games in the "Games Credited" area had links to their profiles on Wiki, but in LT's version, the links are broken. I'll fix what she broke.
Signpost updated for August 21st
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 34 | 21 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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 04:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Access on test wiki
Hey Prodego, I registered an account on the test wiki. If the offer's still open, I'd like to give the tools a shot. Thanks! I apologize for the delay. It's been busy, stressful weekend, but the end result was that I traded one of these for one of these. I had been looking for a while, but finally found a really good deal and wound up driving out of state to take advantage of it. Internet access was spotty and I didn't get a chance to wiki much. TomTheHand 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've also registered a Gmail account. Thanks for the advice. I wish I could have used my Hotmail account; I can't believe they filter out Wikipedia e-mails. They also filter out Gmail invites, which is a jerk thing to do as far as I'm concerned. The e-mails don't even go to Junk, they just disappear. TomTheHand 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Action against me
Hi. I just noticed you had made a comment on the WP:3RR page. Djegan has apparently complained that I wasn't blocked, but I clearly remember having been blocked for 12 hours.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the definition of the word blocked, but I was not able to edit any articles during those 12 hours. The action was taken by User:William M. Connolley, and this can be seen in my block log. Please clarify this for me. Thanks. --Mal 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikimood
Are you the author of wikimood? I would like to use it on my own page, but I want to make sure I'm asking the right person. Maury 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well I think I'm half way there, could you take a look? I can't seem to link to the image, I'm sure it's something silly. Maury 22:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed you had actually mentioned the leading zero in your very first message. My duh. Thanks for the help, it looks great! Maury 22:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh geez, I'd love a little help!
Mattisse is not a problem, from what I can tell she's seen the light in terms of the "nuclear option" of PRODing articles en mass, which was my only real concern there. Sadly there was a little name calling today, but nothing serious.
Tom I just don't get. He didn't post the cites in question, they were done by Mattisse, who as far as I am aware is unfamiliar with the topic. But it appears he will now revert any changes to them. Maybe he's in the right here, but even if he is his methods are extremely frustrating.
Maury 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If only it were that simple.
The problem is that the cites in question were added by a user that apparently has no knowledge of the topic under discussion. Further, I believe there is at least some reason to suspect they were added as a sort of graffitti, a "punishment" for pulling down the PROD tag added by the same user earlier. Looking over other edits by Mattisse you will note several examples of this behaviour, cites being inserted at random into acticles that "she" simply doesn't like for whatever reason (ie, being new age related), in one case they were simply added at the end of every paragraph of an article.
My concern here is that the cite neededs were apparently added in a way that may indicate a new sort of minor vandalism. If the user in question had instead posted "I HATE YOU, IM KEWLZ" they would be removed and no one would ever think of it again. But in this case Tom is apparently arguing that I have to answer each and every one, even though I believe them to be invalid. Worse, claims that are actually interesting were not marked up, but Tom apparently has no problem with that.
Am I reading too much into this? Under normal circumstances I would be happy to add cites in-line, but in this particular case to do so would effectively be rewarding what I believe is graffitti. This behaviour should be discouraged, not rewarded.
Maury 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Experiment in progess. Maury 00:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Good question: all of the information in question comes from one of the three sources quoted at the foot of the article. Tom has admitted, on several occasions, that the information in question is contained in the sources. The only claim I am still trying to back up is that the code was re-used in Sherlock largely as-is; I know this to be true, but I'm still trying to find the right developer within Apple (I have a few contacts) to provide an on-record yeah or neah.
Buuuut, you noted "There is no way for it to be vandalism". Well that's the crux of the issue. Let's say I open an article you recently wrote into, and then tagged every single sentance in it with a cite. I do this not because I don't believe you, or even care, but simply because I'm mad at you for personal reasons. In my book that's vandalism. Thoughts?
Maury 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my heart stopped briefly there. Are you actually saying that it is perfectly OK for me to go and tag up an article with a cite needed on every single sentance? Seriously? If I go to an article you wrote and deleted the entire content, replacing it with "I RULE", that would be vandalism, right? I think we all agree on that one. Ok, now you revert it. So now I go in and paste cite needed on every single word. What's that then, constructive editing?
The guidelines are clear on this, you should tag items that are likely to be contentious. Frankly, I don't think the price of a ten-user license falls into that category. However, when I removed that tag, Tom reverted it.
To answer your question, most of the information comes from here. Read it over, you'll see that most of the cite needed tags are referred to within. The only items that are not are the more recent developments, which shouldn't be too surprising given that the sources predate it. Tom apparently has no argument with the sources, he has agreed on several occasions that they do back up the statements in the article. His only complaint is about the way they have been added, claiming that because they are at the bottom they are not good enough.
I find it more than a little ironic that not one of the articles Tom has edited recently has a single in-line reference in it, and the vast majority have none at all in any format. Consider the last one that he did a "real" edit in, King George V class battleship (1939). Yet apparently that's good enough for those articles.
So this is where all my frustration is coming from, I'm being admonished for not doing edits I feel are unncessesary by a user who is violating wiki principles (don't revert, fix) while at the same time engaging in exactly the behaviour he is complaining about. All this to fill the "request" of a user that may have been editing in bad faith in the first place!
Its also worth remeberring that the ref system is a recent addition to the wiki engine. If this thread were taking place a year ago (if I have my chronology correct) there wouldn't be a debate, because the mechanism in question didn't exist. So the claim also requires that was good enough a year ago no longer is. Maybe that's how it should be, but reverting articles based on that distinction seems like a rather fine point.
Maury 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Now, what do to about Tom? Maury 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I take that back. A quick reading of [[2]] suggests the proper answer to the question above is "nothing". That seems like good advice. Maury 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sock puppet help
There are two users, User:MathStatWoman and User:Harisingh. They have been trying to keep articles nominated for deletion by moving the pages to different names using sock puppets or by voting with sock puppets. I'm not really concerned about what they are doing, but I feel responsible for bringing what I've noticed to Wikipedia's attention. One of the puppets might be User talk:Ksingh20, since this user just started and uploaded a page by MathStatWoman right away. I have a feeling that these two users might have multiple accounts, and MathStatWoman has already been cited for having sock puppets. What do I do to cite them for this violation? Thanks for offering to help. Chris53516 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Good catch!
Its not me :) Syrthiss 13:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)