User:Prodego/archive/63
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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. |
My Rfa
|
Re:Account creation tool request
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 23:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia logo
Hello! I saw that you'd edited some of the globe text on Image:wiki.png some time ago, I was hoping you might be able to help identify one of the characters which I can't figure out. See m:Talk:Errors in the Wikipedia logo if you're interested. Thanks for your time! --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
My RFB
Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 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) 06:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
global deleted image review
I've noticed your opposition to global rights. Could you review the meta:Global deleted image review draft and offer an opinion on the talk page? We Common admins are (unsurprisingly) in unanimous support so far, but I imagine you will have a different take on it that will be useful to the discussion. - BanyanTree 01:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. Was thinking Commons when I should have been writing Meta. I fixed the link above. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Related, I see you removed the marking of Wikipedia:Global rights usage as policy. What more do you think needs to be done to get that from a proposed policy to a policy? It has been reasonably well advertised and as far as I'm aware nobody has objected to the spirit of the proposal. GRBerry 18:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Unblocking of User:Alextrevelian_006
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| You deserve this! Thanks for unblocking me and letting me expose my arguments abut a problem so small. I´ll try to avoid this kind of issues in the future. Thanks again! ometzit<col> (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
override-antispoof right
The second part of the proposal (which comprises bug 14576 and bug 13426) to give account creators override-antispoof right addresses your concern as both admins and account creators will get a confirmation screen if an account being created already exists. This eliminates the need to admins to try creation in a regular account first, thereby killing 2 birds with one stone. See [1] for more info.--Finalnight (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since what Finalnight said is in direct contrast to your oppose, I would appreciate it if you reviewed your comments on WT:ACC, and possibly change your status on the subject to Support. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 23:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello there.
What's the word I'm looking for. It's on the tip of my tongue..... CWii 2(Talk|Contribs) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Epbr RfA
Just to let you know that the 'stricken out supports' are a result of the penultimate thread on the candidate's talk page. Rudget (logs) 19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting my boneheadedness from last night. I was being way to dramatical and overreacting. I won't do that again (edit that RFA that is -- no promises about being boneheaded in the future in a new venue :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to hear that, Keeper ... nothing to be gained by spreading this particular wildfire, which seems to be an extension of some long-standing feuds between parties who spend Far Too Much Time at RfA :-) I'm hoping all parties will calm down and deal with the issue more professionally; if that e-mail is considered as scandalous as some have made it out to be, I've got about six respected admins who need to be de-sysopped for saying far worse things to me publicly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- If I told 'ya I'd have to kill 'ya :-) And I'd be accused of holding grudges. And the admins who have said really nasty things about me on their talk pages would find out I Saw That Even Though You Didn't Think I Did :-) Anyway, you can start with the basic "fuck off" in full view of several ArbCom members, and go from there :-) Viewed in the context of what goes on daily throughout Wiki, Epbr's e-mail was utterly tame (not that I condone him sending anything at all, but if you post the whole darn thing publicly, you see far less than what goes daily on Wiki). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Adminship for Eastlaw
Hi Prodego. Let me just begin by saying that I appreciate your suggestion, it's the best complement I have received on here. However, I am just about to start a new job, and I am not sure I will have the time to devote to adminship. So I guess my answer is, "not right now". Perhaps sometime in the future, I would consider going out for adminship, but I cannot commit to such an endeavor right now. --Eastlaw (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
ITN
I'm going to have to ask you to remove the "Kennedy v. Louisiana" blurb because it is neither listed at current events and has not been discussed. Feel free to add it to current events and then put it up for discussion. Thanks, SpencerT♦C 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like process wonkery to me - just pop it in current events and leave it be on the main page. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
VandalProof approval backlog
I had seen that there is a backlog of 18 users (including myself) that have applied to use VandalProof, and I saw on the VP moderator's list that you are one of the moderators. Would you please take care of it, seeing as rest of the mods are offline or on wikibreak? Just as a reminder, the approval page is at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Approval. Thanks in advance! Haseo9999 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 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) 08:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 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) 03:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Advice please?
Hey, haven't communicated with you in a long time. I need advice as to whether it is ever acceptable to summarize a primary source? I think it is if you don't draw an inference from it at all, but another editor disputes that and I don't want to dig in my heels on it and be wrong. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: WP:VPRF
Hi,
Sorry to single you out for this but you appear to be the only VP mod still around in the last month other than Betacommand but as you're probably aware he's go other stuff on at the mo.
You're probably aware of the situation around bugs with VP with several reports of VP being irrecoverably broken and users being reccomended elsewhere.
As far as I can worl out (for me at least) VP has been broken since late March with users being logged in not being recognised by the launcher and displaying genereic IPs. I tried contactinf AmiDaniel on his talk page but he appears not to have been editing regularly for some time and has not responded to me or other users since I left him a message.
As I said sorry for coming to you over everyone else but given the bug logging which has gone unnoticed apparently, both on Daniel's website (which itself hasn't been edited other than by porn spammers for ages) and on the WP bug logger, can we assume that no more work is being done on VP and it is a dead project? The numbers of people apparently leaving messages on VP mods talk pages asking for approval due to backlogs isn't encouraging either.
Do you have any news at all on the project's status, or can you contact AmiDaniel at all to find out?
Thanks in advance. BigHairRef | Talk 02:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back. I have already moved on to Huggle which is more useful for the new pages patrol which I had been doing by hand, but certain foibles of VP had felt more useful to me when vandal fighting such as the time delay on the new pages and descriptions of the specifics of an edit, i.e. an IP or logged in user and what the increase/decrease in characters was.
- I suppose real life has claimed another victim!;) Seriously though thanks for checking, it's at least good to know where one stands.
- As you are a VP mod might it be an idea to adda message of some description to the VP page at the top notifying users that they shouldn't sign up and telling old ones that it's unlikely it'll ever work again? BigHairRef | Talk 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, you don't have to answer this one if you don't want to but VP broke for me at the latest on April 1judging by my contribs, did you talk to him some time between then and now?
- If was was some time around then, 2 months is a long time for people to be thinking that they can still sign up to VP and then wondering what's happened when they can't log in to it, along with having such a long approval list?
- As you said he was going to do it if you don't want to that's fine I'm just thinking of the length of time which has elapsed mainly, but thanks for helping anyway, I just hope you're not innundated with more requests for the backlog! BigHairRef | Talk 03:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)