Wikipedia

User:Prodego/archive/85

< User:Prodego‎ | archive

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Oversight

I just oversighted a large number of recent edits to your talk page. I can understand your reasoning in leaving the information, but let us aspire to be the better people and give everyone the privacy they are entitled to. KnightLago (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy about disappearing the edits of someone who not only didn't vandalize when asked to, but went out of their way to come and let me know about it. There was no link to who the person who's name was mentioned may be, clearly the user leaving the message was asked to vandalize by someone using that name somewhere. While I don't see any problems with including that name, if you wanted to remove the name from my talk page that would be fine. Removing the entire message from someone clearly well intended is not acceptable, particularly on my talk page. Messages with even the slightest hint of good intention are always welcome here. My talk page is open for anyone to ask or tell me anything, and I do not remove messages I do not agree with. Prodego talk 00:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Prodego. My intention was not to chill any discussion here. I just wanted to remove the offending information in an efficient manner. I completely understand your point about always welcoming comment, and not suppressing any constructive criticism or information. If you would like I can repost the section minus the name. Please let me know. Again, please accept my apologies. KnightLago (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be great, I've been told that apparently he often posts comments containing his name and then requests oversight to cause disruption, which I had originally been unaware of. But in the interests of assuming good faith, I would still much prefer that the message portion of the edit be kept. Prodego talk 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of that rumor, but I find it best to err on the side of caution. I added the section back above as requested. KnightLago (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely should still remove it (as it takes almost no time at all). Prodego talk 02:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback...

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

I hope RN won't mind me saying...

...not your fault, Prodego. I get the impression it's the difference between then and now that prompted this, and while rev-del may have been part of the problem, your post wasn't. We're all accountable, and I'm sure Ryan has no problem being held to account. I sincerely doubt that you were responsible for this. TFOWR 22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It definitely wasn't your fault, you pointed out a legit mistake; don't feel bad about it - it's what good adminship is all about :). I simply asked out for adminship back too soon (it's mostly the subtle things like determining consensus on stuff like AFDs) after making rare edits for ~3-4 years, for the most part it's that simple. Ryan Norton 22:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Fellowship of Friends

Hi Prodego, You recently intervened over at the Fellowship of Friends article and undid a reference to, "Allegations of Sexual abuse", citing the need for much stronger references. I have added three more separate references from major newspapers to the original reference from Robert Snow’s book, making four total. If you have the time would you please take a look and make any comments you see fit to make. The edit will almost certainly be immediately reverted by, so I am making this plea in hopes of avoiding any edit warring. Many Thanks, wantthetruth? p.s. I’m not an HTML wizard so hopefully the style of reference will suffice. p.p.s. Apologies for reverting you recently, this was an error. p.p.p.s Am leaving a similar note with, Onnoitsjamie another admin who intervened —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wantthetruth? (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazar revisited

Hi Prodego and sorry for disturbing you. After a few months of quiet and an RFC, Nazar started adding the same original research into the Prahlad Jani article. After I called his edits disruptive, because he has been repeatedly told to stop adding original research into the article yet he continues doing so, he resorted to personal attacks against me again. Since you advised him before about this I would appreciate if you had a word with his editor again. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazar continued it here and was warned by user McGeddon. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually warned him about personal attacks a couple of months ago, which makes me think he isn't really listening when people try to explain WP:AFD or WP:OR to him, and only tries to sound apologetic enough for people to stop bothering him. --McGeddon (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Your analysis makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much McGeddon. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It is aggressive, I wouldn't call it a personal attack, but it isn't an assumption of good faith on his part. I'd suggest just remaining as civil as possible yourself, see where that gets you. Prodego talk 18:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Prodego. More recently s/he advised me to play on the sandbox and then s/he made this comment. I don't know what else I can do but I hope you may want to weigh in some time in the future. This kind of behaviour makes the editing environment extremely difficult, at least for me. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, those are much more attacking. Have you asked the user to tone down their comments at all? If so I'll go ahead and warn them, if not, go ahead and do that now. Prodego talk 23:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the advice. I have not warned them. But I will do this now as you suggest. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, I am worried about a tit-for-tat visit on my talk where s/he can issue their own warnings. Is it at all possible you could talk to them directly? Thanks again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a warning, it would be a polite request saying that some of his comments have offended you. Prodego talk 03:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that a request would do much. It might even encourage them for not being a stronger statement. I am not going to second-guess you, since I respect your opinion and your time to investigate this, although I disagree. If people can get away with such behaviour it is pretty discouraging. It may not even be worth arguing for policy points if at the end of the day you are showered with such abuse. Granted, it doesn't happen often but when it does it is pretty toxic and discouraging. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand you may not know all the facts. This new round started with Nazar declaring consensus with the edit summary: Since the consensus so far seems to be in favour of inclusion of the info, I'm restoring it to the article. Thanks after a single comment by an IP in violation of existing consensus with three regular editors over a period of more than a month and painstaking analysis of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH during June 2010 and at the same time removing talkpage comments about WP:ORN. They proceed to restore blatant synthesis to the article with edit summary: restore the info per consensus only to be reverted by McGeddon with edit summary: Reverted 1 edit by Nazar; Rv unambiguous WP:OR - no consensus for including an editor's personal "closer examination of the video montage. If you think this kind of disruption and associated personal attacks in trying to push synthesis into the article are worth just a mild reminder that they said something that annoyed an editor, so be it. I will still not second guess you (since you may have perfectly valid reasons for not acting) but I will have to add that this synthesis-fueled imbroglio is not good for the editing environment here and sets a terrible precedent for regular editors who try to fight synthesis and original research in this project. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Now s/he is accusing both McGeddon and myself of tendentious editing and synthesis. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 10:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And let us not forget that we also have WP:BLP issues here. By Nazar trying to discredit Edamaruku's video without valid and reliable sources, but only by using WP:SYNTH, it impinges on Edamaruku's reputation and it should not be allowed in the article without verifiable, reliable third-party sourcing. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see also this, if you have the time. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest personal attack directed toward myself and McGeddon: diff I quote from Nazar's newest posting: By refusing to provide the neutral dating of the evidence material, the mentioned above editors are protecting the con. And this is after s/he was informed at WP:ORN that their edit was original research. The section title they created also mentions "defamation". This is against WP:NLT. Prodego, please assist. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat inactive, and nothing there is screaming out at me as anything other than a slightly heated dispute that should be resolved by discussion between you and him. If there is a problem, I'd take it to WP:AN/I. Prodego talk 08:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a dispute beween myself and Nazar when it is clear from the diff that he refers to me and McGeddon but I am not here for a conversation, especially since your time is limited. I tried to informally resolve it through your intervention since the first time I requested your involvement in June they seemed to heed your advice, at least for a time. ANI is effective but it is for current disputes. This has gone stale currently. I'll see what I can do. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users

I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 03:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:EDDDDDDDI

Why were my edits inappropriate? Surely threatening mass murder is a criminal situation? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but:
  1. Let's not predict what might happen - his explanation satisfies me personally, but what else might need to be done will certainly be up for discussion on ANI
  2. Telling someone who intends to kill people that you are going to contact the police is unlikely to be a good idea
Prodego talk 07:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
In fact, it never even happened....--58.7.169.53 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC).

RFA

Concerning your removal of the RFA for Jmh649 (talk · contribs),[1] I would have preferred if you'd alerted me on my talkpage about the missing data. As it happened, the editor had accepted on my talkpage and I reminded him to formally accept on his talkpage. JFW | T@lk 09:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you would notice the removal fairly quickly so I didn't think it would be necessary to leave a note. Prodego talk 08:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Prodego. I filed a report there. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please kindly advise me

I'm sorry to disturb you, Prodego. But you've been more or less involved into my dispute with Dr.K. and now I feel I need to ask an experienced user for an advice. (On my talk page you said "And if you encounter any problems, do let me know." So, now I'm letting you know. I need help.) Dr.K. has been becoming more and more aggressive towards me. You already know that he started a thread at ANI, where he accused me of various things. I replied there to highlight my feeling about the situation.

Recently, however, I was adding new referenced material to the Prahlad Jani article and Dr.K. started to revert it, first without a valid reason at all (imitating a neglect?), and second time accusing me of being a DIPAS functionary advertising their own organization in Wikipedia. I used a polite private warning on Dr.K.'s talk page, without implying an official template (doing so is suggested by Responding to personal attacks section of the Wiki guidelines). Dr.K. has reverted my warning calling it 'hectoring' and accusing my edits to be 'pseudoscience' etc... He also immediately implied an offical 3RR template on my talk page. I replied there, saying that he violated various rules. Then I used an official 3RR template on Dr.K.'s talk page, because I thought that maybe I did something wrong in my private warning or Dr.K. does not like my private messages. He removed that one too.

After that he came to my talk page and made an aggressive message imperatively ordering me to [off his page]. He also named my warnings 'spurious' and a harassment. His tone is rather aggressive and offensive, and it's not the first time that he calls my polite messages to his talk page sent in an attempt to resolve a dispute issue, a 'hectoring'...

I don't know what should I do in this situation? I'm reluctant to use any official warnings or reporting tools related to personal attacks, because I don't want to hurt Dr.K., and also my own command of these tools is very limited (actually I've never tried to use them before). But I feel Dr.K. is becoming increasingly aggressive towards me, and something has to be done about it.

Please kindly advise me what are my options, as well as what is your personal feeling as to what steps should I undertake. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have the right to remove any message I want for any reason from my talpage. I don't know why you are asking Prodego about this, especially since you told me so yourself: ...While your talk page is your own domain and you have the full right to do so,.... Your personal attacks are continuing, but I am not going to repeat the adjectives that you so unjustly use to impugn my character, so hopefully Prodego can advise you to stop them. As far as calling you a "functionary of DIPAS" I most definitely did not. Your edit was: An official update expressed the opinion that "The DIPAS stamp of approval should silence Jani’s detractors who had doubted the veracity of the claims made by the medical team which had first conducted tests on Jani in 2003."<ref>[http://sudhirneuro.org/files/fast-hungry-mataji-claim-endorsed.pdf diff]</ref> Your edit summary was: sorry? until who do so? DIPAS has already done it. and my edit summary was: *Opinions * are just opinions. We do not need advertising here by DIPAS functionaries. Let reliable sources do this job for them. which was a direct reply to your question in your edit summary and also to your article edit portion: An official update expressed the opinion.... The official update that you speak of in your edit summary was made by someone who works for DIPAS, an employee, an official or functionary. This is the person I was referring to. As far as your spurious 3RR warnings first I did not edit-war but reverted you based on policy which I quoted in my edit summary but I did not continue the reverting but I simply tagged your edits. After I acknowledged your first 3RR warning you came back and harassed me by giving a second one at 29 minutes past the hour after I had already stopped reverting you at 22 minutes past the hour. My last edit at the Prahlad Jani article was at 25 past the hour. Yet your second warning, invalid as it was since I acknowledged your first one, came four minutes after I had stopped editing the article and seven minutes after I first tagged the article but did not revert, thus clearly indicating that I did not wish to edit-war. As far as your other question to Prodego let me give you my advice, and Prodego can give his advice as well. If you just leave me alone and not interact with me or personally attack me I will be more than pleased to reciprocate the favour, although, despite your claims, I have not personally attacked you thus far. Of course if you think I have done something wrong you are free to directly report me to an admin or to Prodego or ANI or anywhere else you like, but calling me adjectives all over Wikipedia for no reason and edit-warring on my talkpage to leave me spurious and pointy warnings is not the best idea for having good relations with anyone. Dr.K. λogosπraxis

Another example: Here I tell you something patently obvious and you are asking me for a reference. So I am asking you again. Please get off my case. Thank you again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact my reluctance to give you a warning on your talk page is revealed by this diff when Progego suggested that I warn you about your personal attacks. I told him: Thank you very much for the advice. I have not warned them. But I will do this now as you suggest. (and on a subsequent edit, same diff range): On second thought, I am worried about a tit-for-tat visit on my talk where s/he can issue their own warnings. Is it at all possible you could talk to them directly? Thanks again. So you see I predicted this would happen and I did not want to engage you on your talk page. Conclusion: I really do want to never edit your talkpage again as long as you reciprocate the favour. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The citation you tried to remove comes neither from DIPAS nor from any of its functionaries. It was my first warning, which you called 'hectoring', not the second one. So, when you say that you acknowledged it, do you mean you did so by calling it 'hectoring' and removing it? And when you say that I should 'stay off from you site', do you mean I should not give you any warnings when you violate the Rules or damage the articles? Because Wiki Policies seem to advise otherwise... Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The bulletin I tried to remove mentioned: "The DIPAS stamp of approval should silence Jani’s detractors who had doubted the veracity of the claims made by the medical team which had first conducted tests on Jani in 2003." so I naturally thought it was yet another DIPAS news release. I did not check the actual link. My mistake. But it doesn't really matter. Wherever this bulletin comes from, in my opinion, it has a certain triumphalist flair about it (heavily POV) which advertises the "triumph" of one side over the other. It is also a recent event. I do not think that by removing it on the grounds of WP:RECENTISM was wrong. I believe that following every single press release of a conflict like this one makes Wikipedia look like a news agency and not like an encyclopedia. So no. Despite your opinion I do not think that I damaged the article in any way by removing it. The reason I did not want to edit your talk page, as I mentioned above, is that in argumentative and protracted situations like this one when you get a warning from the editor who primarily disagrees with you the potential for conflict increases due to many reasons including misunderstandings. To avoid any misunderstandings it is best to meet at the article talkpage and discuss the issues instead of going to the user's talk page. You gave me a warning in your edit summary when you reverted me. That was enough. I can read edit summaries, I know about 3RR, message received. Thank you. But coming to my talk to repeat the same 3RR message that you gave me in your edit summary when you reverted me is a bit of an overkill and it did not help the situation. And then giving me another one, after I had ceased reverting was more of the same. So I propose that if you think that I violated something and you think that your edit summary warning is not enough and for some reason you do not think I will come to the talk page of the article to discuss, obviously coming to my talk page is a lost cause. I would suggest if I do all these things, then don't bother coming to my talk page. Go to the 3RR notice board and report me directly. I know about 3RR so you do not need to warn me about 3RR again anyway. If you think it is a personal attack go directly to WP:ANI or Prodego. They know what to do. If you want to discuss article issues the article talkpage is the best place to discuss. So you see coming to an editor's talk page isn't really necessary most of the time. I am not saying do not ever come to my talk page. But I think we need a little space after such a long dispute and we have so many other mechanisms and places to communicate. I know for sure that I will not come to your talk page, first because I am naturally reluctant to enter anyone's talk page even to say hi to them. Just look at my contributions when I apologise to editors for intruding on their talk even when it is for helping them. The second reason for being reluctant is because my edit at someone's talk page may be misconstrued. So I will meet you at the article talk and hopefully we can straighten matters there. That is my assurance to you. In the future when things improve, who knows, you or I may visit each other's talk pages and have a cup of tea. To be clear, you are still very welcome to edit my talk page if it is any other issue other than a warning. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
"coming to my talk to repeat the same 3RR message that you gave me in your edit summary when you reverted me is a bit of an overkill" -- don't be so smart. I used a private warning at your talk page first, then I reverted the edits just referring to the same private warning in my edit summary (which is quite logical). check the timings. but this discussion really becomes pointless. and all of the above is not a viable excuse for calling my messages a 'hectoring'. thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
As to the 'cup of tea', you're always welcome. I've never been your enemy and my talk page is open for anything except maybe blatant vulgarity, which I'd possibly remove to prevent it from becoming too dirty and messy. -- Nazar (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You said: don't be so smart That is an ad-hominem PA-type vexatious argument. One of the many you have used in your arguments against me. It was not my intention to mislead you by referring to the wrong order of the edit-summary warning. I did not really check that one. But I think that I did not deserve the personal retort for an honest mistake. This is what I call "hectoring"; your ceaseless personal comments and spurrious warnings. Maybe one or two of these messages are not hectoring. But taken together they form a cataclysmic torrent of unjustified negative personal comments and warnings against me which classify as hectoring. I will not elaborate further for the sake of peace. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"cataclysmic torrent of unjustified negative personal comments and warnings against me" -- is obviously over-reacting. I'm not a machine. 'don't be so smart' is a humorous remark about the situation (and it's your personal interpretation to say that it is directed solely towards you; it may be easily interpreted as 'thinking aloud' not addressed to any particular person). But using the word 'hectoring' with reference to a particular user (me in this case) is a direct unambiguous personal offense. -- Nazar (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You said: "cataclysmic torrent of unjustified negative personal comments and warnings against me" -- is obviously over-reacting I do not agree. If you count the number of times you used PAs against me over the period of the last two months you will see that they were many. If you think that your last remark was humorous, it was still personal and therefore uncomfortable for me, given also the past history. "Thinking aloud" is also something that can create misunderstandings. Anyway, I do not want to clutter Prodego's page with pointless discussions. Therefore I am disengaging from this discussion. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussing your gripes is a better option than anything I could do. Can we not just get along here? Prodego talk 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I definitely can; subject to the usual provisions of the applicable Wikipedia policies of course. We are all here to build an encyclopedia, hopefully, not to scar our opponents in the pursuit of our edits' survival in some kind of survivalist encyclopaedic colosseum. If the latter model of behaviour prevails, I am not interested. I had higher hopes from the admin system but they chose not to act in this case and in my opinion their inaction made this much worse than it could have been. It seems that even uninvolved admins have no position on WP:SYNTH or they don't care. (Forget about NPA or CIVIL the enforcement of which seems to be reserved for a few well known editors here). Initially I came to your talkpage here for an unrelated matter, even though I didn't know you, because you had kindly commented about helping me in a widely known past dispute involving TT and RAN. Your assistance in this latest conflict was promising in the beginning but dwindled later. I will not ask for reasons because this is a volunteer set up and I know in the late stages you have been busy anyway. Let's hope that the response of the system improves in the future for such cases as this one, and sorry for collaterally cluttering your talkpage Prodego. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Citybrand

You have blocked them [2] but did not mark their user and talk pages, no mention of an SPI case or the sock master. This leaves the driveby visitor curious, whose account it was - the AFDs where they voted do not give a definite clue. East of Borschov 05:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The sockmaster is unknown. While quacking is enough it was also technically linked to other socks with CU. Prodego talk 06:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Me. No, you. Me. No, you.

Errr... one of us! You! Sorry, feeling kind of silly. Thanks for fixing that filter. I had made a functionally duplicate filter for that and wasn't aware that you were working on it. We were busy saving at the same time according to the log. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I did make it work, but not until after I had broken it more and made it trigger on everything instead of nothing. :/ Having your filter catch them while I fixed the extremely stupid mistakes I made let me take my time and was very helpful, thank you very much for making it. Prodego talk 06:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering...

Could you comment on my request to join the Edit filter manager group, please? Thanks so much! Endofskull (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter

Hey Prodego as a supporter here, I was wondering if this could move forward ? Just tapping you on your shoulder :) Mlpearc powwow 14:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think my preference is probably to say 'go to RfA' - the abusefilter let's you block edits and is very much admin access. Generally unless I'm positive an RfA would pass (or some specific skill is needed) I don't like to give out that right. Prodego talk 05:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanx for your response. Mlpearc powwow 21:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Memphis, Tennessee music spam filter

Prodego - about a year ago you'd worked on a filter to help stop someone shoving some song info in the article that clearly was not acceptable. He's returned again, and it looks like the filter isn't running. Could you look into what might have happened? The stuff he's adding was caught by the filter back then. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Reenabled. Prodego talk 17:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank ya kindly! Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/85&oldid=1145851133"