Wikipedia

User:Prodego/archive/80

< User:Prodego‎ | archive

Why?

Why did you do that? Do you want WMC to leave too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.112.160 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally discussions are archived, not deleted, so we don't have to go through the same discussion over and over. Prodego talk 01:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

But that could make WMC mad and leave!! Why can't we bend the rules, just this once? Everyone is better off if he's there to remove the deniers' posts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.112.160 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work that way - everyone is better off when multiple views and opinions come together from many many editors, and a neutral and factual article is developed from that. There is no one editor so important to the process that the articles could not survive without. Prodego talk 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ha! Please don't tell me you wrote that with a straight face. ATren (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Why? What's wrong with it? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you at least stop Mr. Midnight? He's trying to stop WMC's viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.112.160 (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No one will be blocked for having or opposing a particular viewpoint - any viewpoints must stand on their own merits. Prodego talk 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
That's untrue and I think you know it Prodego. Editors are blocked for their opinions ALL THE TIME. Please address your abusive behavior discussed above. I am eager to know why you collapsed a discussion after I provided the additional diffs you were requesting for so long. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You were attacking WMC. That's just not allowed. You are still doing it on your talk page and we are trying to stop it. Prodego, he keeps stopping me, can you remove the personal attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.183.204 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not even a slap on the wrist

Considering it won't be enforced.

If any other editor had committed so many blatant BLP violations then they'd have been flat out banned, not just topic banned like I suggested. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

  Hi Prodego/archive/80, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

vandalism vs. helping a new editor

Earlier today I reported vandalism to Rodhullandemu. Eventually the complaint lead to your discussion with Rodhullandemu in which you said that "Working with vandals all the time, one can sometimes forget that new editors don't know what they are doing". I understand your sentiments, and I agree (especially since I am new and I don't really know what I am doing). However, I feel compelled say to you that I don't think that the person involved, the one who calls himself Noah Ringer, is just a new editor making understandable mistakes. If you look at his user page and compare its content to the vandalism that Rodhullandemu reversed earlier today (in which the "anonymous" person added a new section to the David Carradine article called "Life after death") you can see that this is the same person that has been vandalizing both the David Carradine and the "Airbender" articles pretty much all afternoon, before changing his name to "Noah Ringer". It is obvious that this person is incensed by Caucasian actors who play Asian characters, It is a shame he could not just discuss it, but I think he prefers a more hostile approach. I appreciate the work that Rodhullandemu does and I feel bad that the discussion ended the way that it did.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Given his contributions, as an anon, and under this account, WP:SPA springs to mind. That would be all very well without WP:POINT violations, but it seems clear that this editor has not yet fully appreciated our various policies and guidelines. If you feel the effort in guiding him is likely to be rewarded, fine. I have other stuff to do. Rodhullandemu 01:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Prodego, I read the admin write up on this and there is some things that are left out.1. anonymous vandalism that took place earlier in the day, specifically a new section to the David Carradine page that read; "Life after death" David Carradine has been reincarnated as Noah Ringer and is playing the role of Aang in Airbenders." There was a similar statement made at the same time on the Airbender article. If you look at the "Noah Ringer's" user page a similar statement is made. It was with this knowledge that I made the revert edit with the warning of vandalism. It seemed pretty obvious to me that this was the same person that had done the earlier vandalism and was at that point signed in a Noah Ringer, advancing the same agenda. 2. There were other entries on my user page, by Noah Ringer, that I "deleted" that I found to be vandalism-weird stuff like changing punctuation and the spelling of the name of another user that had conversed with me and a warning to me that my edits were not constructive. These preceded the admin actions of raseaC . I can not believe that this has been blown out to this proportion. I feel like you stepped into the middle of it without really knowing all the history and I fear that good admins are being wrongly accused of misconduct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorothybrousseau (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Oops sorry.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Footer changes

Hi, I noticed via a complaint on the Village Pump that you added a
to MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright. Since that change caused us to output invalid HTML, I reverted it. I suggest using CSS to fix the problem, instead, though it might be harder. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 05:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Democracy Now! links

Did you agree to their inclusion? As far as I'm concerned, the ANI result was that the links should not be bulk-added or bulk-removed, but an interview may be appropriate in an article on the subject. IMHO, they're clearly not RS except as they quote people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I said "Go ahead and add any links back you think are directly on topic - unless you want me to go through it in which case I'll do the same thing". If you object to any of the links you are of course free to remove them per the normal process. I personally thought many of them were not terribly relevant to the article, but that there were some that were. Prodego talk 06:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't know enough about most of the subjects to comment, but I'd think Desmond Tutu would have more credible interviews that could be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I stand by removing them, but there was not enough support for me to be able to say 'no' to readding them. I - and everyone else - can always contest specific links. Prodego talk 07:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your inappropriate close

I've undone it. There's no excuse for such a close, when the underlying issues raised haven't come close to being addressed. UnitAnode 15:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Prodego, do you defend calling other editors "idiots and yahoos" in the same section where he's been warned not to use derogatory terms? Please explain. ATren (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
On the one hand, this is true. On the other hand, there seem to be about a half-dozen editors who do nothing but harass WMC. His comments are perhaps not the most civilly worded, but that is understandable (though that does not make it any more acceptable), given continued harassment (which I also can't really do anything about). Ideally I would like WMC to be more nice and less borderline offensive. But everyone needs remember the most fundamental meaning of WP:NPA - Comment on content, not on the contributor. Prodego talk 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Calling other editors "yahoos" and "idiots" isn't "borderline offensive", it's obviously offensive, and a clear violation of the restrictions he had just been placed under. WMC and his supporters have chased off many editors who don't even necessarily disagree with them that much on the underlying content issues. I find myself actually aligned with folks who basically deny that AGW is happening, when I don't believe that at all, simply because there are a group of editors that won't let anything approaching balance into the GW-related articles. Your dismissal of WMC's treatment of people as basically the result of "harassment" is laughable. Any of the editors on the opposite side of the content dispute would have been blocked and/or topic-banned for similar behavior. UnitAnode 17:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a problem of false balance. It isn't just that, on balance, there seems to be a warming trend. It's that there is an overwhelming consensus amongst suitably qualified scientists. The problem is thus similar to the one pertaining to evolution. --TS 18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it's really not like that at all. There is a significant minority of the scientific community that takes issue with the "official position", and yet it's misrepresented as being some kind of FRINGE theory, as you've done above. UnitAnode 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE uses the term fringe theory "in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." In fact we have copious and extensive coverage of the objections and alternatives to global warming. We just don't happen to give them undue consideration. The fact that alternatives to global warming are fringe theories is not controversial. --TS 18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Prodego, the "WMC is being harassed meme" holds little truth, when you examine these conflicts in detail. None of us is Scibaby, and we are not harassing him, only calling for him to be held to the same standard of civility as everyone else.

I am asking you to supply evidence of this "harassment" of WMC you claim; otherwise, please strike it. ATren (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well for one there have been six sections created about him on the enforcement page, none of which has added anything beyond the previous ones. Prodego talk 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
How is that harassment? Every one has different sets of evidence. Since when is providing new evidence in a new report considered harassing? Why is the existence of multiple well-formed and detailed reports considered evidence against the reporters rather than evidence against the editor being reported? This most recent report specifically contained diffs not analyzed in earlier reports, and it also contained evidence of WMC's smears SINCE his warning -- how is that harassment? ATren (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, WMCs comments are not ideal. But they are also not grossly uncivil, at least not at the level I would be ok with blocking him. That means I can only ask him to be more civil, which I've already done. So what more do you want here? Prodego talk 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was still active and there was no need to close it. And there are other actions that could have been discussed, like a topic ban, or at least a probationary period which would lead to a topic ban. That is what others have gotten for far less. ATren (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to concur that i think it may have been a bit hasty, and it hasn't helped matters since, either. The fundamental issue is not WMC's civility or lack thereof. That's a symptom. It's rather that there is a tendency to control the discussion around the article content by using dismissive terms. WMC is not the only person to do it, there are many others as well who dismiss folk who might well agree with them 100%, except for the matter of what the appropriate balance is to achieve NPOV. These folk are not Scibaby. In future I urge you to seek consensus before you close. ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Rest assured I have no problem taking action against WMC, but I do so in the same manner as I would anyone else. Bickering about it won't help. Prodego talk 02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well since you asked for it.

You're a broken record. Find something of value to say, or better still something of value to contribute to the actual encyclopaedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be pointy. There's no good that can come from stooping to his level. I suggest you retract this. ATren (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
He asked for it. Anyway, I doubt he thinks it is "sanctionable." TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
TGL, I only understand what's going on here because I saw WMC's original comment. Instead of transcribing it (without quotation marks, even!) get the original diff and link to it here. There's no reason not to take steps to be as clear as possible. The contrary hurts your case.--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes well, it is clear that Prodego is either extremely patient or he had already learned of WMC's comment and decided it was a-okay. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I had assumed it was directed at me, and ignored it (something no one else seems to be able to do). I just now ran across the diff from WMC. Prodego talk 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

MickMackNee

I'm sorry if i've done any part in escalating things with that user, although it seems that what happened to them would have happened eventually anyway due to their behavior, and I reluctantly agree that you probably made the right move. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as general "What would have been ideal?" advise you ideally would not have said "i'll assume nobody is and remove the tag again." Non-ideal but not anywhere near problematic either. We will do our best to keep the site a pleasant place to volunteer, and let us know if you have any problems. Prodego talk 00:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, that was my mistake, I assumed on that revert you showed that I put in a poor edit summary and it was a misunderstanding, but RRs can still be troublesome even with the best of users, and this user was certainly not in that category. I'll try my best to be more careful in the future.Doc Quintana (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation Account

This trolling account fooled me too. CIreland (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since you wanted example of WMC violating his probation....

Note: he was informed that he was required not to edit other users talkpage posts - this warning specifically included usertalk. Since your warning Connolley has deleted the posts of those trying to discuss the subject with him civilly.[1]

I should note he has a long habit of doing this (often so he can get the last word) and I specifically didn't include a comment he deleted, since your deadline (yesterday?), that wasn't really related to climate change.

Anyway this is a pretty clear cut violation of his requirement not to edit other people's posts and he's already been warned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On his own talk page he can remove (but not edit the meaning of) anyone else's posts. I'm more interested in the broken record edit. Prodego talk 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The warning/requirement specifically mentioned usertalk and also said, and I quote, ""[User:William M. Connolley]] is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done." This is quite clear - even the excuse that it is his talk page doesn't fly with such unambiguous language. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
TGL, a user is generally given full control on his own talk page. This includes removing (but not editing) others' comments. Even blocked users are extended this leeway on their own talk. I see no reason why WMC removing comments should be considered problematic. I don't think you should further pursue this. ATren (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is generally true, but his warning specifically stated usertalk, and that the regular leeway/rules didn't apply. AQFK (at 2over2) explained it rather clearly - the letter of the warning was broken. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

75.36.136.0/21

He came back on this range, again, today: Special:Contributions/75.36.137.189.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

ZOT

I see you're active at the moment - can you zap User:Institut fur Klimatologie (Scibaby's current incarnation) pretty please? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I never noticed this, looks like someone got it. Prodego talk 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

MickMac

I refactored your block down to the original week, after his apology. If you think either the apology or my action is full of beans, by all means feel free to undo...GJC 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to unblock him in 2 days if no one touched the block. Alas, that did not happen. Made it almost 3 hours though, that's almost 7% of the way there. Prodego talk 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Would you mind sorting out the unblock request on MMNs talk page, so that it is removed from the Category:Unblock on hold? Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Since Mick's block has already been reduced to a week, the unblock-on-hold request seems moot ... want me to remove it, or do you want to? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just

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

it out if you could. Thanks. Prodego talk 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak?

Hi Prodego. The top of your user and user talk pages says you're engaging in a wikibreak, but it appears that this information is outdated or inaccurate. Can you please update the note at the top of your pages, if appropriate? Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bureaucrat's traits

A bureaucrat must be a judge of consensus. In community consensus-driven processes, they also must carry out these mandates from the community. But like admins, bureaucrats are editors first and functionaries second. The ability to identify weak consensus reached in the absence of critical thinking is related to this. Andrevan@ 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi :)

Hi Prodego, you have your hands full so don't want to trouble you with that long a message. Late last year, I had sent in an account creator request as I wanted to help out new prospective users in creating new accounts. You had mentioned after a few days on my talk page that either I had less experience or I had not gained the community's trust. I just wanted to request you to give me an idea about what would be the areas you would wish me to improve. It'll allow me to move in the right direction. In summary, right now, I am a rollbacker, autoreviewer, have AWB access, do much new page patrolling, participate in AFDs, CSDs, have written some essays, have proposed and made changes to policy and guideline pages (my user page has links to many of these mentioned points). Your inputs will be highly valuable. I'll watch this page for your reply. Thanks and regards. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 19:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AVI

Why did you remove User:WESTMONTILLINOIS? Three times the user removed CSD tag from an article they created. CTJF83 chat 05:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well for one the page was deleted so the diff links didn't work, but I did find the page. I'd consider removing the deletion notices bad, but not vandalism necessarily, he could still be in good faith or confused about the process. I didn't see malice. Prodego talk 05:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
3 times? With warnings each time? CTJF83 chat 05:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Well it never hurt not to block someone, right? Prodego talk 05:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Uh...sure CTJF83 chat 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nathalie Bouvier

Thanks for de-prodding her stub. I sourced it with the best sources that one could find -- Sports Illustrated, Associated Press, New York Times. She is clearly notable, having played at the highest level. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Valentine's Day

Your unprotection of Valentine's Day was very badly timed, as you must have realized. Within the one day since you've arbitrarily unprotected it, there has been copious IP vandalism. Please re-protect the page until after the holiday. — CIS (talk | stalk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like its been dealt with. Prodego talk 02:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

William Connolley again, sorry if you're sick of it

WMC refered to someone as an "old fruit" again, disregarding warnings from his Climategate enforcement. I really don't think he's going to change on his own steam...--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as we say, In A Dictionary of Epithets and Terms of Address author Leslie Dunkling traces the friendly use of the phrase old fruit... to the 1920s in Britain possibly deriving from the phrase fruit of the womb. William M. Connolley (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
In a request for enforcement that phrase was brought to your attention as offensive. You continue to use it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
What action would you propose I take? Prodego talk 02:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. Administrativy stuff. Here's a more in-depth discussion: User_talk:2over0#WMC_breaking_his_parole. I've suggested a topic ban before, and I still think it'd be appropriate. WMC has crossed the line repeatedly since the last enforcement, hurting constructive discussion and giving minimal positive contributions to article space since I've come across him. Apparently he's made great contributions to Wikipedia in times past, but in times recent, he hasn't. You're the administrator though, it's your call.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This issue has been raised in multiple places. I suggest we stick to the parole enforcement board for these discussions rather than lobbying admins directly. FWIW "old fruit" has a quite different meaning to "fruit" and to "fruit cake" and in British English anyway is commonplace and inoffensive (it is used a lot by school teachers and the like affectionately) --BozMo talk 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure. It was just in response to this "let me know on my talkpage or something" thing. And yeah, I had no idea that "old fruit" wasn't offensive in British English. Thanks for the info. It's offensive on several different levels in American. Given that it's been brought to WMC's attention as offensive, I [had] hope[d] he [would] avoid[s] it.--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change Enforcement on WMC Personal Attacks

Following your commitment to action upon the close date of the Climate Change Probation Enforcement for WMC here [2]. The editor has continued personal attacks [3], with others complaining [4]. The editor continues to be inappropriate for a productive project. Please take this complaint forward for appropriate resolution. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I really can't do anything about that, a block would be overturned and I've already given a warning. Perhaps a user conduct RfC would be a good way to get input from the community about what actions should be taken, per the dispute resolution process? Prodego talk 17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Now these [5] [6] are actionable. Geni has made a 24 hour block based on those edits, and I'll endorse that. Prodego talk 04:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just blocked CoM for a week for [7] (disruptive propagandists) and following edits [8]("grotesquely biased and damaging", "abusive enforcement actions and your disruptive activity" and so on). It is one more block in a very long block log. I think we all need to be careful about some parties who each approaching favorite admins with complaints which are snapshots of a complex and miserable tale. ZP5 as a matter of principle please could you not go soliciting admins but just stick to reporting on the correct noticeboards. WMC should not have made the remarks he did, clearly, but the person he was accusing was also living over the line. --BozMo talk 18:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
BozMo, I hear you; however, I was following Prodego's instruction from his close on the Climate Change enforcement page. As a mater of principle, the close should be corrected. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment, but the first comment I wouldn't have blocked for, and the second I would have probably not taken action without 2over0's input. That said, I'm pretty lenient. A week seems at first glance excessive, but perhaps due to the long history of such blocks, is not so much so. Prodego talk 21:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I did say I would happily reduce to 48 hours with a whiff of an apology... --BozMo talk 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Help needed.

I know this is a bit outside of your bailiwick, but I need some help getting the remaining articles from Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia merged in. It's a particularly important project - if we are able to do a professional job incorporating the ten articles released by the New Georgia Encyclopedia for our use, they will allow us to import their entire collection of over 2,200 articles. Please help out if you are able, or refer someone else to the project! bd2412 T 04:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll look in to it when I get a chance, and I'll direct people to it as well. Prodego talk 13:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hurricane Katrina fringe theories

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Hurricane Katrina fringe theories. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Katrina fringe theories. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry for not unprotecting the template earlier. Since they were using it as encouragement, we decided to comment it out and prot it until they got bored. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 05:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your block of IP address 24.1.197.58

I see you've hard-blocked the IP address 24.1.197.58. Is there any reason you gave a hard block, not a soft one? Vistro (talk) can't edit because of this block. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I make all my IP blocks hard blocks. Vistro was the one editing under that IP (I'm ~80% sure), and no unblock request should be accepted from him unless he explains that. Prodego talk 13:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Deletion review for Michelle Obama's arms

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michelle Obama's arms. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Virgin Killer

Saw you unprotected it. I do hope you keep an eye on the page because I expect it will have to be re-protected very soon unfortunately. This is a huge target of religiously motivated vandals, and by their nature they are intransigent. Auntie E. (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Prodego/archive/80&oldid=1077392675"