 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
RFA
Hi, took a chance and nominated myself for adminship. Cheers.--LAAFansign review 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the fast catch
unsigned template
I don't care if the default size is small or not; but your edit also undid the addition of a CSS class "autosigned". If you'd like the size to be small the right syntax is <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">...</span>. See also Mediawiki talk:Common.css. Your recent edit put that template out of sync with the other unsigned templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Talk page protection
Hello, on this IP user's talk page, should it actually be fully protected? It's the talk page of an IP user, so shouldn't it be semi protected? Just wondering, thanks. (P.S. I really admire your "anti-grawp" work!) SchfiftyThree 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For protecting Economic crisis of 2008 from vandalism. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
Re: adminbots
I use Twinkle's adminscripts to speed up repetitive admin tasks; they simple save me button clicking. I have to start the script up every time, so it is not fully automated. In an RfAR, I'm not fully involved as I don't run automated adminbots; however, with over 100 K deletions made, a lot of them with scripts, I can't be completely uninvolved. Maxim (☎) 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
In response to your questions: Yes and yes. And common practice regarding blocking adminbots is not nearly as clear as you seem to think it is. Especially if the bot has been running for awhile with no problems, blocking the bot is a much worse decision than leaving it alone. --Cyde Weys 04:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to add to it. Prodego, you may think that you are in the right when blocking an adminbot (because policy yadda-yadda-yadda and such) but I encourage you to look at the incident from the other side: what you're doing is blocking a) another administrator b) for doing what apparently is only improving the encyclopedia (unless you have hard, and I mean hard, evidence of serious and consistent damage being done). Such blocks don't stand longer than 10 minutes these days. Plus, you'd have an RfAr with a hostile background at your hands. Миша13 10:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the problem of having to block the admin's main account to stop the bot is one of the main reasons I support the expedited admin bot approvals process. As it is, there is a lot of resistance to blocking an admin bot that is malfunctioning because you are blocking another admin's main account. This isn't good, because when bots are malfunctioning, they should be stopped immediately, which is possible with a lot fewer hard feelings when bots are running on separate accounts. But the key to all of this is you should only block a bot if it is malfunctioning. It merely being a bot that performs administrative functions isn't sufficient cause to hit the block button, and doing so will only cause all sorts of sour feelings and difficulties. --Cyde Weys 17:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do run admin bots (see my full list), currently the only one I have running is my FA protection bot which has been approved for a trial by the bag (although I do use some admin scripts such as one to revert Grawp). And also if you do go to arbcom can you please notify me --Chris 10:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Typo at RfArb
When you said "Unlike all other unauthorized blocks, unauthorized admin bots are often ignored", I think you meant "Unlike all other unauthorized bots, unauthorized admin bots are often ignored". I didn't change it because I did see mention somewhere of bots that block and even a software abuse filter that can now block... (I seem to have lost that discussion, can you point me to it?). Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that was a typo. The software filter is mw:Extension:AbuseFilter and is being reviewed by the syadmins, an example of an authorized admin bot is User:FA Template Protection Bot, and an example of blocking admin bots User:Misza13, User:curps, etc. Prodego talk 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- [Changed without seeing this section. Moving here.] I hope this fix kept with what you intended to write. user:j (aka justen) 22:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | 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 (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: adminbots
First, I would like to say that it was MZMcBride who added me. To answer your questions, I do not run it anymore. When I did run it, I was always present when it ran. Xclamation point 02:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Unblock of Misza13
It seems no one has told you yet, but there was unanimous consensus on AN/I that your block was a bad one, and it was overturned. I left my opinion on the matter there. Kind regards, -- how do you turn this on 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have to also say your decision to "block and run" makes this block even more dubious. SirFozzie (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to add a sidenote: if arbcom decides to accept this as an arbitration case, I will retain adminship until arbcom decides they can't take it from me. I am confident that my actions were the right thing to do, and I will defend them. Please, before telling me what I did wrong, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misza13/Archives/2008/09#Gra_wp_reverts. Prodego talk 01:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Come on Prodego, one bad block doesn't mean you neet to resign. Look at it as a major learning curve and become better for it. Don't bow out completely. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh no you don't. John Reaves 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Come on Prodego, one bad block doesn't mean you neet to resign. Look at it as a major learning curve and become better for it. Don't bow out completely. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not see the above statement as an unambiguous request to have admin bits turned off and therefore decline to act at this time. I suggested in IRC to Prodego that a good nights sleep might be a very good idea before actually making such a request. We all do things that others view as mistakes, or even that we ourselves view as mistakes. That is not a reason in and of itself to give up. Prodego has done a lot of very good work here and I hope this works out to everyone's satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 23:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Prodego, you know through our discussions on IRC that I also didn't agree with the block. And however controversial it was, it does seem as though it may have had the intended effect. Misza just posted on ANI a couple hours ago that "This [the discussion] raises hopes should I (and other operators) decide to go through a formal approval with my (our) bot(s)." I know the main reason they haven't is because they were afraid that in spite of their bots doing useful work (something I think even you have admitted) the community would go "ZOMG ADMINBOT" and reject them. That's the purpose of IAR and you know it. Now that it has been brought up again, and the community has inadvertently expressed its approval for the bot, things are much more likely to pick up and get going the way you'd like them to - approved adminbots, working in the open to help the project. Regardless of the outcome, though, this is only one incident. You said yourself you've not done anything controversial before. You are a good administrator. There is no reason to give up and quit just because one of your blocks was overturned. As you can see, I'm not the only one who feels this way, and so I'm emailing this to you as well, because you are not quitting on my watch. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Input from an outside viewer
The easy thing for me to say is that I support your block of Misza13 and oppose it at the same time. The hard thing is to elaborate that.
I looked disinterestedly at first at the AN/I thread involving the block, and being curious to see the other side of the argument, I looked at your user page. I felt sympathetic to your side, and then I read the AN/I thread again. I saw some very good points against the block there, and I don't think I need to tell you that you became very unpopular very quickly. But don't let that beat you down. Whether or not you were morally right, the policy you quoted does allow for blocking users who run unapproved bots; "legally" (and I use that term extremely loosely) you were in the right. Now to give Misza13 the benefit of the doubt: it may have been an oversight, or it might have been that you should have taken more time in between the steps you took—which were wholly appropriate, by the way. But whatever you should or should not have done, you did what you thought was right. And whether or not it was, I give you credit for doing it. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:49 23 September, 2008 (UTC)
- Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misza13/Archives/2008/09#Gra_wp_reverts please. I think that explains everything. Prodego talk 01:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey there. I took a look at the link. To be frank, I wasn't aware of that from before, but I'm not interested in getting into a long discussion over it. Yes, you did make Miszra13 aware, but what about the rest of us. I think you're a wonderful contributor (I've seen your work on those Grawp socks a few weeks ago) but I still have a strong impression that there was a mistake—mostly because you blocked an admin indefinitely over something like bot approval without discussing, say, putting it up on ANI. ~ Troy (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Look, Prodego. I'm sure that you treat everyone with as much fairness as possible, but it looks like Miszra has been operating that bot for a while now. I don't see how an indefinite block would settle things. I know the difference between infinite and indefinite, but any block that is considered risky wouldn't look good on your part. In fact, when someone gets blocked, it doesn't look good for them either. The point is, if Miszra's bot was knowingly operating for such a while, I would expect like anyone else that you should deal with it more carefully so that other people can at least deal with it before considering a block. I would've that this would be common knowledge, but it looks like I'm wrong. This happens far too often. ~ Troy (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey there. I took a look at the link. To be frank, I wasn't aware of that from before, but I'm not interested in getting into a long discussion over it. Yes, you did make Miszra13 aware, but what about the rest of us. I think you're a wonderful contributor (I've seen your work on those Grawp socks a few weeks ago) but I still have a strong impression that there was a mistake—mostly because you blocked an admin indefinitely over something like bot approval without discussing, say, putting it up on ANI. ~ Troy (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
bummer
I've always enjoyed chatting with you, Prod - and hope you're not too stressed by all the broo ha ha... come back when wiki makes you smile once more.. and do take some consolation from the fact that things round here never really work the way it says they do on the tin... but it's still a pretty awesome project :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry PM, I will come back. I could never leave forever. But until Wikipedia lets me treat everyone equally, I can't accept being here. Perhaps I will hang about another WMF site for a while. Prodego talk 01:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Take a break, if need be, sometimes this place can drive you nuts. In the meanwhile, we'd love some help over at Wikisource SQLQuery me! 02:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please don't leave for too long
Wikipedia will be far worse off when you leave. Don't let one misstep bring you down completely, if I had let all my mistakes force me away, I would have left a long time ago. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There are no rules. Bye-bye.
Even Arbcom doesn't follow what few rules they have either. Why expect reason? Bye-bye. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- That diff is, like, 3 years old. Orderinchaos 10:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Do what you must
I feel your pain. I got totally disgusted with the power tripping that goes on here and threw in my admin badge a few months ago. Best of luck with whatever you decide. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
For you
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For your decency and commitment to fair play DuncanHill (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hai
It's been great working with you in the past, and I look forward to doing so again in the future. Good luck in whatever you choose to do! Ale_Jrbtalk 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
|
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For going ahead and doing the right thing, even though other people didn't like it. Ale_Jrbtalk 15:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
Yup
"I could try...": 'cause you did it. 'Cause you do it.
|
The Guidance Barnstar | |
| Because you provide information and assistance in order to answering "What Wikipedia is". A question hard to answer... at least for me. And for what you are: a reference and a guide. Thank you so much. Owdki talk 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
Your "hostile wikimood" expression-style is "one of my good days" expression-style =D.
After reading your comments, the ANI thread and the RFAR comments I felt embarrassed for some of those people. Thank heaven I haven't seen IRC comments. Anyway, and by contrast, there are other good people. This star is attached to them too (thanks for be here). Please, keep on. --Owdki talk 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yet another randomer saying goodbye to you
Life is but a walking shadow,
a poor player, that struts and frets
his hour upon the stage,
and then is heard no more;
it is a tale told by an idiot,'
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Have a great time off-wiki. Don't be long, hear? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Admin bots case
A motion passed in this case that concerns you: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Closed_motions#Final motion in Unapproved admin bots case. Also see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Unapproved_admin_bots_closing. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Gone?
That was a really silly decision made by our so-called hierarchy, but you should not leave because of the incapability of our system to make the right decision, advice...semi-retire from here for about 3 months, and join up with other major wikimedia projects which does not have an Achilles heel in regards to decision making, since retiring will not solve anything, don't blame the failure of one wiki on all the wikimedia project as a whole...your experience and knowledge will be highly appreciated on other wikimedia projects like, wikisource, wikiversity, commons, meta and wiktionary..don't leave :) ... --Cometstyles 11:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think Prodego has indicated on WP:RfAr that he plans to take a couple of weeks off and intends to then return to Wikipedia. My disagreement with his action in the case of one particular block does not mean that we should lose him as an editor and an administrator, and this was expressly stated in the adopted motion itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Prodego, you should come back now. The admin bot thing is largely resolved (and I guess thanks to you for forcing the issue?). The Bot approvals process has been modified to no longer require RFA, and the first batch of bots, including my very own Cydebot, has gotten the admin bit through the process, making it a totally legit admin bot. Many others are now going to follow suit as well. Soon enough you will be able to start blocking unauthorized admin bots because all of the legit ones will have gone legit. --Cyde Weys 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree; please come back. We miss you. Maxim(talk) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Add me to the list of people who hope and want you to come back. You've always been an excellent administrator whenever I've observed or interacted with you. Like the above, I do miss you as well. Best wishes. Acalamari 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are missed and I speak for a lot of people in hoping that you will be back on Wikipedia very soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | 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 (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I sent you an email.--Ashbey…whisper… 02:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Bug in ACC password recovery system
Hi, Prodego. I noticed that the password recovery system on Account Creator has a bug in it. When you try to recover your password, it sends you an e-mail with a link, just like it's supposed to. But when you follow the link, it just takes you back to the login screen, so it doesn't give you your password or give you a chance to reset it. Would you please notify the devs of this issue? Thanks! ~SunDragon34 (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. Prodego talk 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again! How goes the bug-zapping? Thanks for looking into it--I made my ACC account, then went a week or so and forgot the password. I'm eager to get it reset so I can try out ACC. ~SunDragon34 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Excuse Me!?
I apologize for my comments earlier. And I forgive you for that warning because it was accidental. I will erase my previous comments.
Blackeyedfool12
Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeyedfool12 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
What?
Prodego, I only edited the Sandbox. It was not really a big deal. We discussed this before and I have apologized for my comments earlier.
Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeyedfool12 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Kyle Justin
Hello Prodego, I am contacting you because I am in need of help. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I noticed you reverted edits by user 69.239.112.1 to the Kyle Justin article. This user has edited the article several times, performing destructive edits. I believe these edits are covered under the vandalism policy as they are repeated and unnecessary. She has edited the article more than a few times, deleting necessary information, claiming it as redundant, when it is not. The information she has deleted is either not referenced elsewhere in the article or is necessary to repeat in order to properly lay out a time-line of events. I created this article for a musician I am fond of and myself and several others have contributed edits and citations. I believe we have cited the article well. I am looking for help to prevent further vandalism by this article, as she has performed these same edits about 5 times. The user 69.239.112.1 is actually a woman named <removed> of the band <removed> (both have Wiki articles) who is a former bandmate in Scarling of Kyle Justin's. I know this because it is the same IP that she uses on an old band's message board that I moderated on. She also only edits her own pages if you see her contributions. I believe she has also has attempted to vandalize other articles. I believe she is removing information out of spite and for her own motives, not to make Wikipedia or the article better. I am seeking help in preventing further vandalism. I sought help from another user named writingmodification but I don't believe they are an administrator. Any help, advice, or recommendations are greatly appreciated. Thanks ahead of time. I am perturbed and perplexed. -Matt, M. W. Eilers 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart (talk • contribs)
- Yes and thank you. I'll do that right now. -Matt, M. W. Eilers 04:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, the situation is this. Kyle Justin was in a band called Scarling. The singer Jessicka is editing the page created for him by myself and a few others. She mainly just edits information about Scarling, but they are unnecessary edits that aren't constructive and contain spiteful motives. She removes information on the Kyle Justin page that is true, notable, necessary, etc. Information she has no business in editing. She has deleted full paragraphs and whole sentences of information that she doesn't want included in his article. It's a pain in the butt as it's vandalism in my eyes and I noticed you reverted her last edits, because there were no reasons for them. Is this the information you wanted? If you look at her contributions page, she mainly edits her own information, including the article about herself and her band Scarling. I hope this is what you were looking for. I apologize if this is not or is messy, I tried to clean it up and make it helpful, yet I'm very tired and just really annoyed that this page we created for Kyle is constantly being destroyed by this person. I just want to know what I can do to make it stop or if it can even be stopped or if there is plain and simply anything I can do to maintain the integrity of the article and prevent her from continuously editing it in an improper way. She plain and simply does not mean well in her editing of this article. Thanks for your help and for reviewing all this. I have even noticed on her contributions page that she is requesting help from others in editing the page citing that her edits are being undone by myself, others, and you. --Matt
- You'll see here that she edits out that Kyle disbanded Skeleteen soon after he joined Scarling and that his bandmate Cheryl went on to join the notable band The Breeders. She edits out the names of galleries that were played in as well as the fact that notable artist Mark Ryden was showing there, and edits out a sentence about Samantha Maloney's resume as a drummer, which makes her notable. This sentence is edited later to just cite Samantha and her resume. She then removes that the singles Kyle recorded on were produced by notable producer Chris Vrenna and that Kyle reformed Skeleteen immediately upon leaving Scarling. She also removes that Kyle was a contributing writer on the albums he recorded on. Part of this was left alone as it was uncited.
- Here she deletes the musical career summary. She edits out her last name, as she tries to go by just her first name, edits the photo again, edits out that the Curiosa tour that Kyle did with Scarling included The Cure and Interpol (both notable bands, which make the Curiosa tour notable...). She again repeats her edits of the Scarling article, editing out what she doesn't want mentioned in there, and adds a period at the end of Scarling (which is no matter).
- You'll see in this edit that under the "musical career" summary, before it outlines each band in detail, it explains which bands he is in now, what bands he's been in, and what he contributed to each band. She has removed this several times, claiming it is redundant, though it is not said in any other part of the article in summary, you would have to read the full article and deduce this information, that he is currently in Skeleteen and has been in these bands doing these things. She says in her edit summary that the very beginning of the whole Wiki article says the same thing, but the beginning says he is a musician and which bands he is known for, not the rest of the info including what he is in now, his contributions, etc. She edited the photo for the Skeleteen article, which I don't believe was necessary. She then goes on to edit out information that she doesn't want featured in Kyle Justin's Scarling article including that Cheryl went on to be in The Breeders when Kyle disbanded Skeleteen upon joining Scarling (which is mentioned), what bands Samantha Maloney is notable for (info mentioned nowhere else), and especially that when Kyle left Scarling he left to reform Skeleteen with Mia (info mentioned nowhere else).
- Here you'll see that she repeats her edits of the information about Cheryl and The Breeders (a notable band that she joined after Skeleteen was dissolved), the information about Kyle leaving Scarling to reform Skeleteen, and deletes the entire paragraph about what band Kyle is in now, what bands he's been in, and what his contributions were. (Not mentioned together in any other place in the article.)
- M. W. Eilers 04:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart (talk • contribs)
Thank you for looking into it Prodego. Have a great holiday, I do appreciate your help. I know that anyone on Wiki isn't involved in any personal disputes but it was really disheartening to see that the article I started on Kyle Justin was brought into it by this user. I would love to know what you think about this, because I think it's obvious that it's much more than a good faith content dispute and is just vandalism and she is turning it into an edit war. I want to make the article more stabilized and better so I welcome edits, have been editing other articles, seeking advice on making the article better from other Wikipedians, and have even been looking for more citations to quote. But to see it attacked is frustrating. I know that parts of the article repeat but I know that it is necessary and often encouraged here and that parts of articles should be outlined in their initial summary and then explained. I like Wikipedia and have been creating more content to add but then again, I feel like anything I add now may just be attacked by her or someone like her. In any event, thank you again I look forward to coming to some sort of resolvement. Happy turkey day! M. W. Eilers 15:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart (talk • contribs)
- Hey Prodego, hope you had a good holiday. You told me to contact you on Friday so I'm contacting you. What's is done from here? Is there something to do to prevent this from happening with her? Thanks so much. -Matt M. W. Eilers 21:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart (talk • contribs)
Hey Prodego, thanks for getting back to me. Because I am very new I am reading up on all the guidelines so I can speak properly as a Wikipedian to the other user. I'm glad I am reading them because the guidelines all makes sense and are helping me with developing a dialogue before I talk. I suppose what I need to ask is their side, as to why they want these edits on this page. I'll tell them the side I see and back it up with explanations and citations. I suppose then we will see what happens. I don't want to be overproptective of the article but I just don't want it decimated by someone who I don't believe has good intentions. Do you have an recommedations on how to create a dialogue that will resolve the situation on here? Thanks again. -Matt M. W. Eilers 14:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart (talk • contribs)
Huggle and sandboxes
I see you reverted someone's edits in the sandbox - I got caught in the same trap a few days ago. It's a temporary bug, but we should all be on our guard. I've been avoiding Huggle after 10PM myself to make sure I don't make another slip I'll feel silly about!--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 03:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- So is there a way to get the word out better until Gurch can get it fixed? I expect to make some godawful errors, but hardcore vandal fighters are bound to get suckered by the sandbox thing . . .--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 03:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I ended up with that user you over-Huggled on my watchlist, and I think this really was vandalism, but I had to dig to find it.--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 04:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I saw how he got piled on, which is why I welcomed him. It's easy to forget that "anyone can edit" isn't the same as "anyone can figure out what we want instantly and not get frustrated by the seemingly endless list of hidden rules."--otherlleftNo, really, other way . . . 04:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
About your recent 04:59 Edit
That is okay, I forgive you. No hard feelings, right?
Blackeyedfool12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeyedfool12 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)