Archives

Jul - Oct 2006 Nov - Dec 2006 Jan - Feb 2007 Mar - Apr 2007 May - Jun 2007 Jul 2007 - 2008 2009 2010

Hi! Just want to inform you that the vandal found a way to bypass the rangeblock. He is currently using the IP address 180.194.55.154. -WayKurat (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I did a larger, but shorter, rangeblock (4 days on 180.194.48.0/21). Prolog (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The vandal returned again, this time, he is using the IP address 180.194.0.3. -WayKurat (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

180.194.0.0/23 blocked for two more weeks. Prolog (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, sorry to bother you again, but he bypassed the rangeblock again. Currently he is using 180.194.55.118. -WayKurat (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-blocked 180.194.48.0/21, also for two weeks. Prolog (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon returned again using a different subnet. Currently he is using 180.194.200.254 and 180.194.203.95. -WayKurat (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

180.194.200.0/22 blocked for four days. Prolog (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon returned again after rangeblock expired. He's currently using 180.194.50.157. Please also note that during the rangeblock was in effect, he is also doing the same things over at simple.wiki. -WayKurat (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

180.194.48.0/21 blocked for two more weeks. Unfortunately, I can't do anything to stop him/her from continuing on other wikis. Prolog (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anon bypassed the rangeblock again, the latest IP addresses he/she is currently using are 180.194.200.105 and 180.194.200.176. Update: he/she is currently using 180.194.203.119. -WayKurat (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update again, user is currently using 180.194.144.251. There is no stopping this guy. -WayKurat (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa took care of these ranges. Let's see if it helps. Prolog (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent) Anon returned again after all rangeblocks expired. Here is the summary of all of the IP addresses he/she uses for the past 48 hours: 180.194.145.17, 180.194.145.92, 180.194.197.59 (already blocked), 180.194.201.245. It seems that he/she changes IP addresses very often compared from the time that there is no rangeblock applied to the vandal. -WayKurat (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 180.194.240.0/22 for four days and 180.194.145.0/24 for a week. He/she is on quite active ranges at the moment. I'll keep an eye on this. Prolog (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current anon's IP address is 222.127.223.78. Was blocked by another admin 3 days ago but continued to vandalize articles after block expired. -WayKurat (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad, I guess I accidentally edited the reverted version by mistake! Corrected now, thanks for pointing it out! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mega = 2^20 ≠ Million = 10^10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchior Felix (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A megapixel is widely considered to be one million pixels by reliable sources, even if 1,048,576 would be technically more accurate. We should follow standard usage and be consistent, so 0.41 is correct here. Prolog (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of this? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The old friend theory is backed by plenty of behavioral evidence, so let's see the technical stuff. Prolog (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In case I haven't expressed my thanks before, I admire your willingness to put your neck on the line despite knowing how Arbcom feels about this. It is very much appreciated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ,you added checkuser confirmed template to this user page User:ChildofMidnight in this edit here, could you please direct me to the statement that verifies that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sock block by a CU fits the time line. Prolog (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there is no confirmation on the archived page here - I will ask him , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CUs do not create SPI cases to document their findings and blocks. Prolog (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your welcome, i'm a usual spanish wikipedia editor. I hope contribute with my spanish experience and view. Bye. --Jorjum (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you create the redirect for Cloud atlas (film) to Cloud Atlas (novel)#Film adaptation, or shall I? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect when I closed the AFD, using the correct capitalization: Cloud Atlas (film). Prolog (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I should have realized the spelling issue before writing. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to User talk:WayKurat, I got the ranges: 180.194.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 222.127.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 124.6.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), 112.198.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), and 120.28.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) . Involved in Philippine TV Vandalism. Warning evasion. Usage of Multiple IP's. Can you block them in 2 1/2 weeks to 1 month? No more IP to IP hopping as prescribed by order. Thank you. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC) This rangeblocking may affect Non-Philippine TV Vandals. If they cannot create their account, they should visit create an account on Meta-Wiki.[reply]

I can't block the /16 ranges. There would be way too much collateral damage. I've blocked 180.194.28.0/22, which seems to have been the vandal's main range recently, for four days. Even that range is pretty active, unfortunately. I would need some IPs to calculate further rangeblocks. Prolog (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

180.194.0.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

222.127.0.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

124.6.0.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

112.198.0.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

120.28.0.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Here you go. Please set in 2 1/2 weeks to 1 month. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those ranges don't seem correct. For example, 112.198.0.0/22 has no edits at all and 124.6.0.0/22 no edits since June 2010. You can try the rangeblock calculator, or list individual IP addresses here and I'll calculate the ranges. Prolog (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes it would be really handy! I've thought about asking for it before but never got round to it. How would I go about it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should have the feature now. Remember to use it only for clearly non-constructive edits. Prolog (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks very much! As I understand it, it's only for use against deliberate vandalism, rather than people just making mistakes, so that's how I'll be using it. Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i´m on your side there any way we can discuss it with more users? Or just over one of the Talk pages (2011 Site)? Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 talk page is probably a good idea since the article is about to go to the main page. I've given the user a direct link to creating a discussion if he/she still wishes to introduce these changes. Prolog (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year, just read your comment, good one. ;) Kante4 (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think should be done about the stub-spam? You mentioned WP:AN. I know that something needs to be done, but I don't know what. I would go to WP:AN, but I'm not sure what to say. Can you offer any advice? — Fly by Night (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that WP:BLPN would be a good place to start, but now I noticed that the user was already warned about the BLP implications about a month ago, some articles were deleted and he/she lost the autopatrolled rights. WP:ANI is probably more appropriate now. A short summary of the behaviour and why it needs to be stopped should be enough. I'll create a thread later if someone doesn't beat me to it. Prolog (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion created at WP:ANI#User:Dolovis and mass creation of BLPs. Prolog (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I must have missed the edit on my watch list. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I came across your name at WP/ANI regarding a user creating a bunch of stub BLPs. I know nothing about sports, but I have found another user to seems to be doing something similar. If you have a second, would you mind checking out the pages this user is creating and assessing whether they meet WP notability standards? So far they are all unsourced so I have prod'd them but even if he finds sources I'd like to know that these people are actually notable as far as sports standards go. The user in question is User:Itsupforgrabsnow. Thanks! N^oformation ^Talk 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any reliable source on Tomas Forde or Damian Forde or anything at all when googling "damian forde" +ballinaglera. The user has a history of creating inappropriate pages, so I'll delete these and give him/her a final warning. Prolog (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. I'll add the user to my watch list and let you know if he creates a new slew. N^oformation ^Talk 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. Why not. That would be a handy addition to all the other tools. :) Cs-wolves(talk) 13:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Remember to use it only for clearly non-constructive edits. I'll also see if I can re-block the ranges used by the Grand Prix report vandal. Prolog (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It'll be used for just vandalism, as set out. Is that the ones from the 190... IP range? That vandalism is getting rather persistent. Cs-wolves(talk) 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one. The rangeblocks had expired about two weeks ago. The three main ranges are now blocked for a month. Prolog (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see...hopefully this block deters the users from doing it again...not getting my hopes up though. Cs-wolves(talk) 14:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a lot of activity at present, and I'm wondering if the time is now ripe... We may have to launch the diacritics RfC shortly, so any help in getting the above page ready would be appreciated. Feedback on timing is also appreciated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prolog. There is this user named Superastig who keeps vandalizing the correct information in the MGM Holdings page. He keeps vandalizing the article countless times and I had to undo his actions. I even separated The Samuel Goldwyn Company page from the Samuel Goldwyn Films page and he kept redirecting the former page to the latter page because they're separate industries. He also made a useless template for the MGM Networks and I added the names of the networks to the MGM Holdings template and added a tag for speedy deletion to the MGM Networks template he created. Can you please look into the history of the pages and keep him from making any unnecessary changes? King Shadeed 1:32, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Hey. It seems that you two have run into a number of content disputes. I don't see anyone engaging in vandalism here. I'm not very familiar with these subjects, so I can't say if you are factually correct about the articles, but I agree that Superastig shouldn't continue to merge The Samuel Goldwyn Company without discussion. He/she should now follow the proper merge process, although you too can tag the article with {{mergeto}} and create a discussion at Talk:The Samuel Goldwyn Company, stating your reasons for objection. This way you could get opinions from other users and maybe even come to a consensus. You can also start a discussion at WT:FILM, which is watched by many editors. If these don't help, you can try some alternatives at WP:DR. Your deletion nomination of the MGM Networks template is currently incomplete as it is not yet listed at WP:TFD (add {{subst:Tfd2|MGM Networks|text=Your rationale. ~~~~}} to ). Prolog (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Access time , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prolog …

I noticed that your last few reverts of List of Mensans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have been back to a version by me (also reverting NNs) … I found this earlier thread on this Talk page … anywho, just a note that I'm still here, even though my IP has changed several times since then.

Happy Editing! — 72.75.57.223 (talk · contribs) _{17:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Hey. The flow of non-notable additions and bizarre removals will never end, but I've noticed that you are still doing a great job in keeping the list clean. Prolog (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prolog...

This user "Ihatechickens214" has been editing many articles from Wikipedia. Now he just wrote things on the article of rational numbers. I alredy corrected, but I believe something must be done to this user.--JuanGabrielRobalino (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have blocked the user as a vandalism-only account. If you see another vandal like this, easiest way to stop him/her is to report at WP:AIV. Prolog (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your block of Eugen Simion 14, while made in good faith, to be excessive. It is clearly a punitive action rather than preventative (as called for in blocking policy), and 1 week is way too long a block length for someone with no vandalism history and no prior warnings. I would ask you either unblock, or at least bring it to ANI for review. StrPby (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user who is willing to engage in page-move vandalism on our current top article might do pretty much anything, so I do believe the block was preventative. It doesn't have to last a week if he requests an unblock and promises not to continue the behaviour. Prolog (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, they're not sockpuppets or block evading. Instead you are experiencing a coordinated attack from a certain website. --Bsadowski1 21:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite like I was going to say. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 21:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It indeed felt a bit too much activity from one user. Prolog (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure I have it on record that I think it is wrong for you to revert multiple articles (most brand new articles) when there were no comments about the moves. These would include Miloslav Mecir, Jr., Victoria Larriere, Iryna Bremond and Arnau Brugues-Davi. These were not long standing articles and to say that they are inaccurate is not true or open to interpretation. I find that comment unworthy of an unbiased administrator in this English wikipedia. Obviously I wouldn't revert them back but to insinuate it's policy by saying "inaccurate" is really strange. I checked all moves with proper English sources before making them but that does not seem to be taken into consideration. Two others pages are being properly discussed because of objections but no one seemed to care about the others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. In my opinion, articles should not be moved to titles that do not jive with our current practice. "Inaccurate" is indeed a strong adjective, although it can be justified by several sources. "Less accurate", or "non-standard", would've been a better description. I'll note that the two editors who objected to your moves earlier did not have the technical capability to revert. Prolog (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plese stop revert my moves.This page must be called "Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo" because it is official name. Alex (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said on your talk page, Wikipedia does not necessarily prefer the official name over the common name. "Monte Carlo Rally" is the well-established name for the event, here and elsewhere. If you want to change the status quo, you should take the matter to WP:RM and not move war against other editors. Prolog (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mika Kallio.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Techtri (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:DGUIDE. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:DGUIDE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Prolog! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on the billionaire page. If it's not too much trouble, could you look into getting it protected, even if just temporarily? It's been getting an awful lot of IP vandalism lately. Thanks. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's been enough recent vandalism to justify semi-protection at this time, but I'll add it to my watchlist and keep an eye on the situation. Cheers, Prolog (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prolog, I was contemplating blocking you, or at least warning you, for what seems to be a slow-rate edit war on recycling, then noticed you're also an admin. I am curious why you continue to revert what appears to be valid sourced content being added to the "criticisms" section of that article, without any discussion on the talk page, or explanation in your edit summary? There's evidently some history concerning the IPs adding that material of which I'm unaware. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about checking the contributions or block logs of the IPs I'm reverting? I've been dealing with socks of the banned user Grundle2600, and I intend to continue this "edit war". The content is not "valid" either. Only one of the paragraphs is backed by a reliable source. The rest of the sources are blog posts and opinion pieces published on partisan websites. Prolog (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. I did notice that the IP was blocked for evasion, but it wasn't clear who the sock was, possibly because I didn't look back far enough in the article history. Just looking at the article's history by itself, showing sourced content being added and reverted without discussion, set of an alarm bell in my head, which is why I decided to ask you about it. I'll be watching out for future similar incidents from this sock too. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Prolog, I hope you this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the GA nomination of this article, and have placed it on hold pending the resolution of some minor prose issues. You can find my review at Talk:Michèle Mouton/GA1, regards. Resolute 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is appealing their block, but it is more or less impossible to review it. You blocked them for socking, but there is nothing I can find that indicates how you came to this conclusion and what other accounts you believe they were operating abusively. Given that their last contrib before the unblock request was six months before they were blocked it's hard to see how the block was warranted. I'm hoping you can shed some light on the subject so that the request can be properly reviewed. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user created the account Nestor1010 (talk · contribs) and continued posting the same hoax. Prolog (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying,. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice expansion to the article! :) Yaamboo (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Prolog (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prolog,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

What is your rationale behind removing the comment on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama ([1])? I don't see anything that violates talk page guidelines, the editor that made it had a legitimate question about article content. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that he was blocked for sockpuppetry. A default edit summary and no block tag on the editor's talk page are a bit confusing. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from the contributions pages, I tagged the user page the same minute I reverted the edit and blocked the sock. Prolog (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I figured that's who it was a sockpuppet of, just didn't see the tag right away. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Prolog,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, long time no see! How are you these days?. Can you help me and identify the handsome looking lady at 2:36 and the guy with glasses next to her? I understand they are of some esteem but don't know who they are and want to find their wiki articles. I know its shot at the house of the composer Ilkka Kuusisto in Lauttasaari, Helsinki.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm fine, thanks. It's nice to hear from you. The woman did look familiar, but unfortunately I can't come up with a possible name for either one. Prolog (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Go for it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have plenty of required common sense and familiarity with relevant MOS, would you be willing to help sandbox-draft a WP:BLPNAME type proposal to RfC? And try and end the constant disruption? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(i) BLPs should give accurately the spelling of names in Latin alphabets in full according to the spelling in the current nationality of the person (when current nationality is evident) as per examples in First Mention. (ii) Where BLP titles include parts of the name spelling in the title, the title should also reflect the spelling per current nationality

For example In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a good idea to drop some of the detail, especially if trying to fit a clarification into BLPNAME/BLPSTYLE. I would go with something like "When spelling a living person's name, editors should maintain encyclopedic standards and take into account the subject's preference (if known). The spelling of non-anglicized foreign names often requires the use of diacritical marks." Prolog (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes that sounds much better. Do you have any other suggestions on who would be good to proofread such a proposal? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prolog, I invited 2 other editors who have shown familiarity with existing WP guidelines in this area to look at the improved version above. We can shift to my Talk page or WT:BLP if that is better. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are more ideas to consider, I think this discussion should continue at WT:BLP. If the proposal generates interest but also raises concerns, it can then be improved. Prolog (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I should have invited OhConfucius but couldn't get his Talkpage to load to paste this. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a note there. Prolog (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But the WT:BLP proposal is dead. Mind if I ask, is PBS a new face on this issue: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Permission_to_make_a_shortcut or is there a history I should be aware of? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RFC, but I haven't personally interacted with him much. However, I would say that he is probably one of the oldest faces in this debate. The first major discussion that I know of was this poll in 2005. Prolog (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background. Illuminating. It does show however that 7 years is a long time. The flavour of that discussion tells me that en.wp is less us/au/ca/uk.wp today than it appears to have been back then, and more us/au/ca/uk.wp editors today are not threatened by "foreign names". In ictu oculi (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:200cvy. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 22:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Let's see if CUs can find more. Prolog (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have Barbara at the desk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Prolog (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - see what you think. Prioryman (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt. I've blocked the account. Prolog (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would it be possible to check if user JournalScholar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JournalScholar is a clone of the banned user Scibaby? The behaviour and certain features of this user have lead me to suspect this possibility. Thanks. Belsavis (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2012 (UT

Hey. This one is definitely not Scibaby. Prolog (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you might wish to note this, restored after deleted 7 days. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I smell a sock... ThemFromSpace 00:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, blocked. Prolog (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prolog, since you've helped with swatting this mosquito previously, I wanted to draw your attention to a few new socks he's created to edit-war on Solyndra loan controversy and/or Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler (an article that the original Grundle2600 created and is a perennial obsession.) It's the same edits with the same edit summaries. As if WP:DUCK weren't enough, likes to admit he's a sock now. [3] [4] [5]

The new socks are:

• Magenta 447 (talk · contribs)
• Sixty-seven million (talk · contribs)
• Sunshine and chocolate (talk · contribs)
• Epowerfan (talk · contribs)
• 50.0.12.121 (talk · contribs)

Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the first three accounts as obvious socks and semi-protected these two articles. The rest is up to the CUs. Prolog (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned a semi-protect that you applied to an article in (this) SPI report. While I'm not convinced there is a connection (other than sharing the same POV and combative nature) with Grundle2600/Magenta, I'm convinced most of the new throw-away accounts and IPs editing the account you semi-protected are used by just one editor. At least the semi-protect has quieted the article and steered the editor to the talk page temporarily. Thanks for that, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huomenta, a question. Do you have any idea if Chicago MOS make an exception for using Vietnamese diacritics in the case of cultural patrimony, for example in particular ethnomusicology, as e.g. per the Garland Encyclopedia of World Music? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CMoS (latest edition) contains any detailed advice on Vietnamese diacritics. It has sections for about two dozen other languages. Prolog (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not that it would carry any weight in RM, just curious. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to how you would apply your position on diacritics in titles in this context. Please discuss it there if you care. —  AjaxSmack  16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I meant to note this before, thought I had, evidently didn't. 6 Oct 2011. You saw the moves counter RM, you noted the delete of Talk-page-links to failed RM before requesting uncontroversial moves. I yesterday noticed the same and asked the two speedy move admins to restore. Do you mind if I ask, was there a reason you didn't at the time? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. It's sad to see this user has continued gaming the system. I should've reverted those and brought the matter to AN/I back then. I guess it seemed pointless at the time as he was moving articles left and right anyway. Prolog (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may still be pointless. FYI admin Cuchullain has evidently spotted your warning to Kauffner too (I didn't mention it) and linked to it in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruska25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - what do you think? I get an odour of sock from this one. Prioryman (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, blocked. Prolog (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Handersman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)- Perhaps it's time for a checkuser/full SPI? This is definitely not a new user.... Sailsbystars (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's clearly not a new user and the pattern of behaviour is typical of Scibaby. I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby to see if any more socks can be found. Prioryman (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got another one, Punashay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Persistent bugger, isn't he? Prioryman (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and yes. Blocked again. Prolog (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more: Dr. R. Rosen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Prioryman (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Prolog (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been adding info and that is what I want. I believe that there is plenty of info that can be added so once you and if there is any partner of yours working on the article are done, ping me so that I could give the further comments. Doing great work so far, keep it up :) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 22:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is indeed a lot to do, but I'll let you know as soon as I'm finished. Prolog (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Following recent RMs restoring undiscussed/tampered moves, I have made mention of your request to User:Kauffner to stop moving WP:VIET articles counter RM results on User_talk:Graeme_Bartlett#Vietnamese_cities_and_provinces. I don't have the diff/date to hand. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prolog, I've started a thread to get clarification on SPI evidence and cited your response there. I'll admit to being confused.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Prolog (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider some dialogue first, before sending this kind of a message.

"Please stop using the article on Huma Abedin as a platform for spreading widely discredited conspiracy theories.

"Your edits are in violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. If you continue to disregard these policies, you will find youself blocked from editing Wikipedia. Prolog"

I note that that section of the article now includes a link to the official Congressional letter. This is an improvement.

However, I'm left wondering if you read my actual edit. Further, I'm curious as to how a reasonable person could interpret my edit as "spreading widely discredited conspiracy theories." My edit was worded as neutrally as possible and consisted solely of (1) the fact that five members of Congress sent a letter, (2) the fact of to whom it was sent, and (3) facts of the letter's contents (via an excerpt of the relevant portion of the letter) describing information sought.

If, perhaps, you're referring to the Center for Security Policy I cannot comment, since I'm not familiar with that organization. But, this leads to your second statement, and the major problems with the Muslim Brotherhood controversy section of the Abedin article.

In accordance with WP:BLP / Writing Style / Tone:

"BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. . ."

WP:NPOV states:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

WP:BALANCE / Impartial Tone states:

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries. . ."

WP:DECISION states:

". . .use neutral statements backed up by reliable citation and let the reader make the conclusion."

The Muslim Brotherhood controversy section is written defensively, emotionally and one-sidedly in support of the subject person, while deliberately intending to cast the five members of Congress in a negative light. – (ref. WP:BLP / Writing Style / Tone)

Personal testimonials — such as those from John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Scott Brown, Ed Rollins and John Boehner — do not comport with encyclopedic style and/or content. – (ref. WP:NPOV)

As written, without providing background information, this section attempts to convince the reader that the testimonial givers are right, and that the five members of Congress and the Center for Security Policy are wrong. – (ref. WP:BALANCE, WP:DECISION)

An honest assessment is clearly needed of the neutrality of the Abedin article. Hackercraft (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackercraft (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balance does not mean equal weight between the mainstream account and the fringe theories. The allegations comprise 20% of the body section of the article, with the whole controversy at about 50%. In other words, both the controversy and the fringe side of it are already given undue weight. You made the BLP problem worse by removing the entire mainstream view and adding more wacky partisan claims that the State Department has been "enormously favorable" to the Muslim Brotherhood. As for the letter, it is self-published and written by Abedin's political opponents; it does not qualify as a reliable source on the subject (WP:BLPSPS). McCain's comments, on the other hand, are noteworthy as they drew praise and appeared in thousands of newspapers around the world. Prolog (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You raised a number of points. Unfortunately, you didn't address, nor do I sense that you considered, any of the points I raised (and supported). Nevertheless, I'll address the points you raised.

First — When you say "fringe theories" and "wacky partisan claims," it indicates that you may have already taken a position personally and are now judging the 'controversy' section of the Abedin article based upon your own personal viewpoint, rather than assuring that the article reflects a simple presentation of the facts—as required by Wikipedia's neutrality policy. (Ref. WP:NPOV)

As currently written, one sees McCain, Graham, Brown, Rollins and Boehner presented on one side of the issue, and Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert, Rooney, Westmoreland, and the Center for Security Policy on another side. This looks like a roughly 50-50 split, and not a "fringe theory."

In any case, theories (of any type) do not belong in this article, but rather only facts. Which is why, in my edit, the Center for Security Policy appeared only as part of the quoted letter, and also why I removed the testimonials.

Second — It's unclear how a reasonable person could dispute that Abedin is the subject of a Congressional investigation. It is simply a fact. And the Congressional letter documents that fact.

It is clear, however, that discussions of this issue can get very heated. Therefore, if one wishes to present the facts of the various sides of the Muslim Brotherhood influence issue, then that should be the subject of its own Wikipedia article. That type of discussion goes well beyond the scope of an Abedin biography article.

Third — You are misunderstanding the term 'self-published.' Self-published refers to material written and published about one's own self. (Ref. WP:BLPSPS) Bachmann, et al, are not writing about themselves.

Their letter is official communication from the legislative branch of the government to the executive branch of the government. Hence, as official Congressional correspondence (whether one agrees with the content, or not) it is definitely an acceptable, permissible source.

That Bachmann, et al, are "Abedin's political opponents" is your own assumption of the motives of those conducting the investigation. A letter requesting information does not qualify them for your label of Abedin's "political opponents."

Fourth — Whether McCain's comments drew praise from newspapers is irrelevant. McCain's comments are opinion. Opinion is not the same as presenting facts which allow the reader to decide for himself—which is the policy required by Wikipedia, as I indicated previously.

Nevertheless, it would be a stretch, but these comments could be left in, if they are clearly labeled as opinion, and, for balance, personal testimonials are added which support Bachmann, et al. Once again, allowing the reader then to decide for himself.

In conclusion — This article, as currently written, does not meet Wikipedia's required editorial standards. Hackercraft (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, neutrality does not mean counting heads and giving equal weight to each of them. If it did, the articles on global warming and the September 11 attacks would look very different. "Facts" that are not supported by reputable sources don't belong on Wikipedia or in any other serious reference work. You fundamentally misunderstood BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." Bachmann's letter was not published by an independent publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it was self-published by Bachmann et al. Therefore, it might be usable for Bachmann's article, but it is not in any way appropriate as a source on Abedin. Prolog (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is becoming obvious is that you are determined to maintain a pro-Abedin slant in the article, in violation of one of the most fundamental of Wikipedia's policies, the neutral point-of-view.

In your responses you make claims, but you offer no support for your claims. Unsupported assertions resolve nothing.

Let's try it again.

Prolog: "Again, neutrality does not mean counting heads and giving equal weight to each of them..."

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that there are on-going official Congressional inquiries into Muslim Brotherhood influence, it was your own claim earlier that Muslim Brotherhood influence is a "fringe theory," yet you fail to provide any methodology for determining fringe theories. So, it remains simply your claim.

Therefore, my conclusion is at least as valid as yours (if not more so), that based upon the article's own content, opinion is about evenly divided when one, as you put it, 'counts heads.' (i.e., Bachmann, et al vs. McCain, et al) Ergo, not a "fringe theory."

Prolog: "If it did, the articles on global warming and the September 11 attacks would look very different."

What those articles might look like is irrelevant to this discussion.

Prolog: ""Facts" that are not supported by reputable sources don't belong on Wikipedia or in any other serious reference work."

In that case, inserting the opinions of McCain, et al, cannot be justified, as they are 'not supported by reputable sources,' but only by McCain himself.

Prolog: "You fundamentally misunderstood BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.""

Once again, self-published does not mean something that someone has written. If it did, then all of Wikipedia's content would have to be removed, since someone has written.everything in it.

Self-published means, rather, material that a person has written about himself or about herself. That this is the case becomes readily apparent when one considers the phrase from WP:BLPSPS: "Living persons may publish material about themselves. . ." Michele Bachmann was not writing about herself.

I suggest you consult other, disinterested administrators for clarification.

(http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/disinterested)

Prolog: "Bachmann's letter was not published by an independent publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it was self-published by Bachmann et al."

You cannot use this rationale to dismiss the Bachmann letter. The opinions of McCain, et al, (which you are supporting) were also 'not published by an independent publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' They are McCain's own statements, just as Bachmann's letter is her own statement. Your reasoning is not logical.

Prolog: "Therefore, it might be usable for Bachmann's article, but it is not in any way appropriate as a source on Abedin."

On the contrary, it is the essence of this section of the Abedin article. It is entirely appropriate as a reference source on Abedin, because, as I already described in an earlier response, it establishes and documents the fact that Abedin is the subject of a Congressional investigation, nothing more, nothing less.

Conclusion

1. The pro-Abedin testimonials should be removed.

2. The excerpt from the Bachmann letter should be restored.

Most troubling, though, it appears that your own personal viewpoint is interferring with your ability to edit objectively.

Hackercraft (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources consider the Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy theories as fringe; not just me. You are simply refusing to accept the vast difference between a self-published partisan letter and a reputed neutral third-party source, and even failing to understand what self-publishing means (that is what you should have looked up in a dictionary). I don't know if you lack the competence to edit here or if you are just trying to wikilawyer your way around established policy. In either case, if you struggle with the simplest publishing terms, you will struggle with Wikipedia's content policies. Please don't waste my time. Prolog (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I wouldn't be wasting my time if you weren't obstructing a cleanup of the article.

You still haven't explained how the Bachmann letter falls into the catagory of self-publication. Frankly, I'm beginning to question your competence.

Have you consulted other, disinterested administrators for clarification? If so, whom? Hackercraft (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If five people write a letter independently of any publisher and the main author publishes it as a PDF on her official website, the letter is a self-published work. Did you even click the wikilink above? The definition in the article is correct: "Self-publishing is the publication of any book or other media by the author of the work, without the involvement of an established third-party publisher." Prolog (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	You deserve this for your work at Paavo Nurmi. It is a GA now and undoubtedly, the credit only goes to you. Keep up the good work, we need editors like this. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 13:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made few changes; removed promotional terms from lead and did some width changes to get it to GA. I did it myself as they all were minor. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 13:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Prolog (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Spencer^T♦C 05:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a Controversy-paragraph it is usefull not only to mention the anti-controversy information but also the BASIS of the controversy. If that is not done the information is ONE-SIDED and that is not the policy of Wikipedia! BrutusVT (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources (WND, Counterjihadreport.com, The Source with Ezra Levant and court records) fail WP:BLP and WP:V by a country mile, and the YouTube link is not allowed per WP:EL. If you can't find a single reliable source to back up your claims, your factoids are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. This is not one-sidedness; it is due weight (see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE). Prolog (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Facundo Argüello (tennis)

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comments here.   LittleBen (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nature Trick (talk · contribs) is up to a rather familiar pattern of editing... Prioryman (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm keeping an eye on the account. Prolog (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got a live one for you: Call Me Ream (talk · contribs). Prioryman (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'rv poorly sourced quotes'

What's wrong with citing from a Moore-written article, from the Stop the War Coalition?

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/usa-war-on-terror/2158-michael-moore-why-i-dont-support-the-troops-america-and-neither-do-you

Beingsshepherd (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

You added a large number of quotes, separating them with commas and losing much of the context. That constitutes a confusing list of sentences the subject wrote on the topic, rather than a proper summary of his views. This article indeed works as a source (unlike the two others), but self-published sources must be used carefully to maintain due weight and ensure that the additions are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please also note that bolding should never be used for emphasis. Prolog (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate! Just trying to ascertain the rationale behind this edit to this AFD. The comment was certainly off topic, but it was clearly in response to the article creator being raised as an issue by a visiting admin. You didn't really explain why you thought it should be removed in your edit summary and generally, comments at AFD aren't removed unless they contain a personal attack, outing or something that can't be resolved in the discussion or by hatting the comment. I certainly won't revert your revert but I thought I should raise it here rather than there. Feel free to respond here, if you like. Cheers, Stalwart111 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fail. Just noticed you blocked him as a sock-puppet. That explains that. My apologies! Carry on with your excellent work. Cheers, Stalwart111 23:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan. Nice to see someone else cares :) - Alison ^❤ 23:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the era. Had to insert the interwikis manually as there are two Wikidata pages for the person, and I have no idea how to merge those. Prolog (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that your deletions have nothing to do with any Wikipedia violations and everything to do with anti-Catholic bigotry. The very issues about anti-Catholicism in the 'Catholic World Report' articles were addressed during an internationally aired interview with 'Mea Maxima Culpa' director Alex Gibney conducted by Amy Goodman on the show Democracy Now (11/13/02).

You clearly have an agenda with regards to this film and obviously do not want readers to know about legitimate criticism of it.

You provide more evidence for the fact that anti-Catholicism is the last accepted bigotry around.

Not cool. Not cool at all.

Soon to be banned? (If anti-Catholicism rules the day, then yes.) 323dfp (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just curious, how did you determine that Ss6j81avz is a sock of Grundle2600? He/she seems to have gotten away with it through hundreds of edits over 3 months... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm not a checkuser so my sock blocks are based on behavioral evidence (unless otherwise stated). For obvious reasons, I won't go into the specifics here. Prolog (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed per CU - Alison ^❤ 00:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have blocked the account. Prolog (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one? And is there a policy I can cite to reverse them? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed - if things get really bad, I can possibly rangeblock. And yeah, WP:RBI - Alison ^❤ 05:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one's kind of stinky too. Precocious and similar POV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• sigh -  Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 05:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have fun deleting the list of people reaching the specification for the IAAF Hall of Fame. I will note I did not start this list, there is an on page invitation to expand the list which I did from yes my knowledge of medalists and world records, but ALL OF THIS IS PUBLIC RECORD. There is no secrecy who has won each Olympic medal since 1896. The world record progressions are less well documented, just because the IAAF keeps misdirecting the information on their website, but it is still well documented because other people are retaining what IAAF has published in the past. It is written history. A name on the list from 1947 is going to remain on the list today. It will be an unnecessary duplication of effort to source each entry here, you can click on each name and see these famous athletes' accomplishments and each is well sourced on their own pages. Start with sports-reference.com I've been over the list of names here quite thoroughly. So as I said when I reverted your deletion of content, show me an error, particularly an error I committed. Trackinfo (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, it is not "fun" to see an experienced editor repeatedly insert factual errors and text-book original research. I'll give you a few examples of why policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BLP exist:

• Bailey has three WC gold medals, not one.
• Kipketer does not qualify as he retired in 2005.
• Lopes does not qualify with only one gold (you fixed this one, although only after twice reinserting it).
• Mutola does not qualify as she retired in 2008.
• Ritola set two 10,000 m world records in 1924; not one in 1900.
• Saneyev set three world records, not one.
• Virén set three world records, not one.
• Železný does not qualify as he retired in 2006.

These are the errors I noticed with just a quick look. I haven't investigated the claims about athletes I am less familiar with. Even with all the errors supposedly fixed, the list is unsourced, unencyclopedic, crystal-balling junk and needs to be nuked from mainspace (keep it in your userspace if you must). You need to understand that claims need to be explicitly supported by a reliable source, not just to the point where you can reach your own conclusions (read WP:SYN very carefully). Even if you do find such a source for some athlete, the claim has no place in the main article as the list of possible inductees is not an encyclopedic subject. Prolog (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your irrational overreactions and now threats are perplexing. What I responded to was apparently posted first in this edit by User:Kasper2006, which contained an invitation to add more names. When I discovered this article, 14 months later, much of the content you object to had already been posted by Kasper and User:97.123.89.155 and a host of others. Most of your objections seem to be on the basis of minor details as to the exact number of medals they have received, when they received them or the official date of their retirement. Yes those are details of the criteria, so yes there are details to be cleaned up. You as an editor chose not to clean up details you readily admit are details YOU KNOW. I'll note you haven't provided a source either. Those of us in the know, I'll include you in this statement, know this information is very public and easily sourceable. I contend this information is so common, sourcing does not need to be duplicated on a non-BLP page where these articles are wikilinked. There is no violation of WP:BLP and additionally (aside from minor numerical values that do not affect the outcome) the information is correct. You can check the sources yourself. You obviously did. So there is no question about WP:V. You discovered minor errors, most of which were not mine until I had to respond to YOUR wholesale deletion of the section. The statement is "Other athletes who match the criteria." You also obviously understand the criteria from which all this information is generated. There is no mystery here. You couldn't make the corrections you put in this talk page above if it were not publicly understood, clearly there is no WP:OR here. These are minimums and even with factual changes, all meet the minimums, or in the detail of retirement dates, will. Perhaps the most egregious error in the list is Carlos Lopes, not my edit. And even that was only that the overzealous IP counted Lopes' two IAAF World Championships at Cross Country, which could be close enough but are technically not track and field, meaning its a gray area to the criteria. And since this is a statement of fact that these athletes match the criteria, not stating that they are in fact members of the Hall, there is no predictive action here and this is clearly not WP:CRYSTAL). What this is, is YOU starting an unnecessary WP:EDITWAR. You are on your fourth revert without making any contribution to the content other than repeated deletion. I invited you to take this discussion to the talk page, to get other people involved. Instead you have insisted on keeping it on the path less traveled and bounce between our private talk pages. So I suggest you are the troublemaker here on multiple grounds. For now, I suggest again you take your ONE PERSON OPINION about the validity of the section to the page's talk page. Lets hear some other comments. I suggest you invite Kasper, the IPs, plus all the other contributors to that section (there are a bunch) to talk on the issue so we can reach a consensus on your deletion. Be thorough, I'm watching. Barring any positive action by you, the next time I return I'll revert again and will copy all this discussion to the talk page. Trackinfo (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You state that "there is no violation of WP:BLP" and "clearly there is no WP:OR here", but you have not produced a single source that would verify any of those athletes as a possible future inductee. Simply stating that I am wrong is not addressing the concerns. In case it was not obvious which bits of policy I was referring to, I'll quote a few here:

• WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."
• WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
• WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
• WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. [...] It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses."
• WP:BLP: "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I have taken this matter to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#IAAF Hall of Fame. Prolog (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Trackinfo. Having myself "open" this list, it is clear that it (as is usually allowed from wikipedia), is expanding. If Prolog had found errors in it, he had to correct it do not delete it. I therefore ask that the list is reinserted. --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the concerns about this content at the new discussion I linked above. Prolog (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Terry McAuliffe#Discussion. Instaurare (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What can be a more authoritative source on Martin Bashir than Martin Bashir himself? It seems that Wikipedia's definition of "reliable source" is indistinguishable from "pre-filtered pre-approved closed loop echo chamber." Content might be offensive, but it is accurate and is as well documented as is technically possible with 2013 consumer technology. Jwbaumann (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your source was an unreliable blog, and you misrepresented Bashir's comments by making conclusions about what the subject "suggested" and by leaving out all context. If you think your content was "accurate" and "well documented", you do not understand this project's core policies. The fact that no reputable newspaper has covered this shows that the content does not belong in an encyclopedia, even if it was rewritten in a neutral tone. Prolog (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your edits to Anders Behring Breivik were very selective and incredibly biased. You changed words like "hero" to "perpetrator" and "battle" to "attack". It seems like you're going out of your way to make him into the villain. It's just like NBC's treatment of George Zimmerman. I don't think people with such hateful biases like yourself should be editing people's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Coat Hanger (talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for great service in the Wikiproject Finland, Onneksi Olkoon!!! Aeazer (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and welcome aboard! Prolog (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the Joan Walsh quote, it is real. I remember when she wrote the article in 1990 and it was printed in the Examiner. It caused a real commotion in the Bay Area, with people arguing about it in print and in periodicals for several weeks. There was no internet then (at least no internet as we know it). Just because it happened before the internet doesn't mean it didn't happen or it isn't controversial and worth including in the article. Chisme (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Joan Walsh. Prolog (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my edits on this topic. I would like to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, and though I am new, your explanation for your edit is not clear. Another user, GoBonobo, deleted my addition on the grounds of WP: NOR. I didn't see this, and, thinking my addition just hadn't posted properly, I reposted it. Losing it twice made me look more closely, and I saw you deleted it for the same reason she did as well as for personal commentary. I read Wiki's NOR policy and tried again. You were right that my first post contained an opinion in the first sentence (which I thought would not be controversial), so I removed it and relied on a secondary source. You deleted it again with the comment "same crap plus some blogger's opinion." Regarding the list of topics, I can source all of those if it is necessary. I sourced all the contributors. Regarding the publication's characterization of policies it opposes--if you read the articles footnoted, I don't think you will find I have mischaracterized their stance.

Please explain specifically how the parts you object to conflict with WP's policies. Regarding the article by Berezow in RealClearSience, I don't understand why it is against the policies to discuss public criticism. I recall seeing it discussed in many Wikipedia articles, and I don't recall seeing anything in guidelines prohibiting it. The blogger in question, Alex Berezow, is the Founding Editor of RealClearScience, has a Ph.D. in Microbiology, and has been published in USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, US News and World Report, The Economist, and The Wall Street Journal, etc. See more here, http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alex-b-berezow/0/22a/700. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leandermeander (talk • contribs) 03:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be characterizing the publication's articles, authors or policy views in any way; that is a job for reliable sources such as scholarly works and reputable newspapers and books. If a proper source does not exist, the content does not belong in the encyclopedia. Picking a few articles published by the subject and drawing conclusions from them is original research and never acceptable, even if you think you're being very accurate and fair. Berezow's views are noted at Politicization of science#Overview. If his opinion on LiveScience has not been picked up by third-party sources, it would be undue weight to report it in the article. Welcome, Prolog (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information I've added is perfectly in line with the rules. If it has excessive weight in the article, go ahead and make the article larger. You can't remove sourced info just because you don't like it. You can try explaining your vandalism on the talk page of the article. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The sourced bits are an unattributed copy-paste from the event article, which you are inappropriately forking into Jauhojärvi's article in your mission to right great wrongs and punish the wrongdoer. I retained a neutral summary about the quickly rejected protest, but Välbe's opinion has no place to be highlighted in Jauhojärvi's biography. Due weight is not negotiable and, per WP:BLP, the onus to ensure the material is in line with policy is on the editor who adds or restores the content. That's you. Given your appalling and blockworthy attacks against the living subject on both the article and the talk page, you might find yourself blocked from editing the next time you attempt to reinsert a BLP violation into the article. Prolog (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized you're severely biased. You're from Finland. Of course this controversy affects your national pride. A perfect example of conflict of interest. You're already twisting the rules. SOAP and CWW have nothing to do with this. I suggest you stay out of it until you learn to differentiate between personal and objective. As for everything else, there's a thing called consensus, and I AGAIN, for the FOURTH time, encourage you to use the article's talk page to discuss it instead of abusing your administrator's rights and threatening me. Thank you. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the conversation on Talk:Sami Jauhojärvi. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, that as mere (It's maybybe truth or not, so Hayha was highest kill or not). We can't confirm that, and i think "one of the highest" is exactly than "highest"MiG29VN (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We write what reliable sources say and don't give undue weight to unconfirmed, fringe claims. You have still not provided a single reliable source for your wording change to "one of the highest", and the unreliable sources you used have now been shown to present shady figures that have not been accepted by reputable publications. Either stop reverting or start presenting sources that aren't random websites or WW2 propaganda bulletins that don't even mention the subject (WP:SYNTHESIS). Prolog (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banner of Victory (Знамена Победы) - Russian book 1975. It's realiable sourcesMiG29VN (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book, published by Pravda, a party organ not usually considered reliable here, quotes a colorful bit from a WW2 bulletin with in-text attribution and makes no mention of Häyhä. You can not use this highly questionable source to synthesize and contradict assertions from reputable major newspapers. Your change fails all the three core content policies: WP:V, WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE) and WP:NOR (WP:SYNTHESIS). Prolog (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New book: Special Forces Sniper Skills. Robert Stirling: http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=fCqZ7ozPJ9YC&pg=PT28&dq=702+confirm+kill&hl=vi&sa=X&ei=d31YU7bbFoPd8AX7q4H4Bg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=702%20confirm%20kill&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiG29VN (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's reliable, but it too credits Häyhä as the sniper-kill record holder despite mentioning Surkov and his figure earlier: "The top Russian male sniper was Mikhail Surkov of the 4th Rifle Division with 702 confirmed kills over the course of the Axis invasion. [...] Besides the Russians he killed with his rifle, Häyhä killed a further 200 men with a Suomi KP/-31 submachine gun, thus bringing his credited kills to at least 705. Unofficially, he is thought to have killed more than 800 men in the 100 days, but his accredited sniping total of 505 is the highest number of confirmed sniping kills in any war." However, I wouldn't now object to a change as long as it reflects the near unanimity of reliable sources. The wording used by The Washington Post seems fair: "Finnish sniper Simo Hayha killed more than 500 Soviets during World War II, by most estimates a world record in known combat operations. [emphasis mine]" Prolog (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, 200 kill with submachine gun is PROBALY kill (we can't confirm because sub-machine gun were used at close combat). If we count probaly kill, Surkov have more than 1.000 kills, Zaitsev have more than 500 kills, etc... I said we can't confirm who is the best (because these Probaly kills). So, we can write: by most estimates the one of the highest record in known combat operationsMiG29VN (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is to stick to what reliable sources write about the subject. There are plenty of sources for a wording like "the highest" and WaPo for something like "by most estimates, the highest". Do you have a reliable source for your suggestion ("by most estimates the one of the highest record")? Prolog (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=jCf9ysI0VvMC&pg=PT56&dq=simo+hayha+one+of+the+highest&hl=vi&sa=X&ei=EzpZU_rjO8XqlAW05oGQDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=simo%20hayha%20one%20of%20the%20highest&f=false - One of the world's deadliestMiG29VN (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the world's deadliest soldiers", not "one of the world's deadliest snipers". I also don't think that this book qualifies as reliable as the publisher seems to be a convert-file-to-ebook service (WP:SPS). Prolog (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? You call adding facts vandalism? Is this how things work on Wikipedia. How can you delete my addition without explanation and call it vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.165.3.250 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those "facts" to yourself. This is an encyclopedia. Prolog (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and encyclopediae are made up of facts the last time I checked. 122.165.3.250 (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ROC. Since you had some involvement with the ROC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 03:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please do not remove citied and verified information that is displayed in a factual matter on WP because you don't agree with the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.37.66 (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a great contribution to freedom of information you have, overstepping power to sensor the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.37.66 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you are an active editor and admin from Finland and as a fellow-finn just thought to ask about this little typo in infoboxes. For example in the articles about Sysmä, Sastamala, Pielavesi etc. there is the word "area" and a given date (2011-01-01) typed together although they should be separated by a space. I tried to edit this line in the text but couldn't do it, but is it somehow possible to fix this little error? Thanks/Kiitti :) 83.148.218.223 (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It seems this fixed it. Prolog (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to pop in and say hello!! I'll be getting on for ten years ago soon that I created Rauno Aaltonen! Doesn't time fly!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You can't argue with timestamps of the past, but at least you can try to ignore them. So, nice to meet you! Prolog (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasize that the "Alpine Rally" (or "Rallye des Alpes") and the "Coupes des Alpes" are two different rally.

Both share the same history as the Austrian Alpenfarht but are totally different now.

At the end of the 80s two distinct association were created:

- Rally Story (which runs the "Coupes des Alpes") www.rallystory.com
- Alpine Rally Association (which runs the "Rallye des Alpes") www.rallyedesalpes.com

The "Rallye des Alpes" is the revival of the "Alpenfarht" and if you look like at the event you will see that is like back at the old times.

Others differences:

- The "Coupes des Alpes" is only in France unlike the "Rallye des Alpes" which is international (Switzerland, France, Austria, Italy and Germany).
- The "Rallye des Alpes" is historic and welcomes only cars built from 1910 to 1963.

One fact to be careful with is that the trophy that you win in the "Rallye des Alpes" is a coupe des Alpes.

I'm sure together we can improve these wiki pages, make them better and right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallyedesalpes (talk • contribs) 10:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. The article at hand is about the rally that existed in its own form from 1932 to 1971, as reported by Martin Pfundner in Alpine Trials & Rallies and by other reliable sources. Additional information about the subject's roots and development is welcome as long as it is written with an encyclopedic tone and based on a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Similarly, revival events can be mentioned in the article if they have been noted by independent, reputable sources. If you are connected to the Alpine Rally Association, you should also read the Wikipedia guideline on conflict of interest. Prolog (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why did you revert this [6] bc of npov reasons? As I remember this being a controversy. Avono (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The addition was made by a sockpuppet account in violation of the puppeteer's community ban. Prolog (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed you reverting posts by Revs438 over at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Where is the evidence that this user is a sockpuppet of User:Grundle2600? I don't see any case listed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. I clicked through to the contributions page of each account, and I couldn't find any conclusive behavioral evidence linking the two accounts. Where is the justification for the accusations of sockpuppetry? Where is the investigation and the community discussion building a case for the block? TBSchemer (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are free to act on the behavioral evidence they have gathered, and often choose to do so quietly when dealing with serial sockpuppeteers and other long-term abuse of the project. The evidence in this case was 100% conclusive. Hence the block. Prolog (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where is this 100% conclusive evidence? I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I just find it a little disconcerting that someone can be accused of being a sockpuppet and be blocked indefinitely by a single person acting as judge, jury, and executioner. TBSchemer (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see the evidence, you're not familiar with this breed of ducks. An obvious sock does not need to be obvious to all passersby. Prolog (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A duck test is hardly appropriate for this accusation. You should really apply some actual evidence before wholesale removing of sourced information. Furthermore, your linked essay is not a guideline and does not apply as none of what rev did could be considered vandalism. Overzealous administration is probably just as bad as the crime you are claiming. Arzel (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that CU is not even accepted to confirm obvious socks, I'm all ears about this exciting new alternative to behavioral analysis that finally provides "some actual evidence". Prolog (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm looking for is some evidence of these behaviors that make the connection so obvious. You said it was 100% conclusive that these two accounts were created by the same person. Well, if you're absolutely sure that it's a duck, then certainly it should be easy to point to its duck-bill, its duck-feet, its duck-quack, its duck-waddle, etc. After going through Grundle2600's disputed contributions, it seems like the offense that got him sanctioned was repeatedly creating new articles with titles that insult political figures. I don't see any of that in Revs438's contributions. Their behavior is completely different, with no true vandalism coming from Revs438. In fact, the only resemblance between Grundle2600 and Revs438 that I can see is a possible vague similarity in their political views. However, it would be pretty bad if Wikipedia administrators were abusing the sockpuppet-blocking mechanism to systematically weed out editors they thought had particular political views, wouldn't it? How many other accounts have you accused of being sockpuppets of Grundle2600? After reading the list of sockpuppet investigations related to Grundle2600, I'm concerned that the campaign against his socks may have become a politically-fueled witch hunt. Can you please offer some evidence for your sockpuppet accusations (also against Heloderma suspectum...the accusations look quite unsubstantiated there) to reassure me that these actions against editors are not as subjective as they seem? TBSchemer (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for my sock blocks is always available to any administrator, and to any trusted editor with relevant experience. You are looking at edits from 2010 or earlier for comparison with a 2014 sock, contesting a block on a 2010 CU-confirmed sock and wondering why I don't post what is essentially a guide on how socks should try to avoid detection in the future. I have no desire to be someone's tutor or to alleviate "concerns" that are nothing but clueless conspiracy theories. Prolog (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per [7], it is a violation of policy to even use CU on an account unless that account has already engaged in disruptive behavior. There are serious privacy issues, and CU has a known tendency to produce false positives. If you have blocked even one good-faith editor in pursuit of socks that haven't even caused any disruption, then you are doing more harm to the Wikipedia project than your quarry. TBSchemer (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this was recently promoted to GA and at the time badly needed improvement. I'm trying to get it up to at least near GA status. I was wondering if you could translate the history from Finnish wikipedia or a decent source and I can help source it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Great work, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to look into this right now. Prolog (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I would like to award this barnstar to you for noticing the unwanted results of the substituting and therefore putting the first step in fixing the F1stat template. Many thanks, Tvx1 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that without your initial edits the template would have remained unfixed for a long time. Prolog (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not quite sure about the recent edits in Fusel alcohol whether they are constructive or not, but decided to report them here. I'm not certain about the edit by 75.155.35.37 but I think this user 142.110.227.189 has done some suspicious deletions of text and already has a previous track record in pointless editing. I'm not sure if they are vandalism or how to report them properly but just decided to give a heads up. 83.148.218.223 (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. It looks like everything has been fixed by another editor. 75.155 changed the wording in a direct quote, so that edit had to be reverted too. Prolog (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice, problem solved. Maybe I still did the right thing for pointing those edits out? I'm not sure what to do if I come across these kind of dubious edits and how and where to report them to be checked out by someone with more skill? 83.148.218.223 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think notifying an active editor or WikiProject almost always works, but the general guideline is to be bold. If you identify a problem, which can be anything from a good-faith error to pure vandalism, you can fix or revert the relevant edit(s) yourself. For more serious and/or complicated issues, there are several noticeboards. Prolog (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a closer look at these pages and try to be bolder in the future. All said and done, I wish you merry Christmas (hopefully a white one) and a great new year. d:) 83.148.218.223 (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, same to you. Prolog (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you filed this report: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trasel/Archive a while ago. I think I may have run into some new sockpuppets from the same user.

• BellicoseSouthernBelle (talk · contribs)
• SoBanal,SoBanal (talk · contribs)
• ArdentBravesFan (talk · contribs)
• ReformedBeliever (talk · contribs)
• DunwoodyWoody (talk · contribs)
• TheSwitzerdude (talk · contribs)
• 50.37.76.226 (talk · contribs)
• OldCowpoke (talk · contribs)

What do you think? Rezin (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you've found a good collection of socks. I requested checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trasel. Prolog (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's brilliant detective work. Thanks for following up and filing the new case. Rezin (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this chap could be our old friend? Some of the usual tells but I've been out of the loop for a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but I can't say more than that at this point. I have blocked four other accounts as obvious socks, however. Prolog (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drat. I thought I'd removed everything that could be troublesome - I'll take a look and fix it. Sorry about that. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That should be taken care of, then. If you run into any more, please let me know. Again, I apologize - I thought I'd removed everything troublesome from the category tree. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

FYI...I mentioned your name in an ANI thread. Not a complaint (the issue is with another editor), but as your name was mentioned I wanted you to be aware. Nothing specifically to do with you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Mercenary.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Faccia a faccia.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Milano calibro 9.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mika Kallio (portrait).jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:High Crime.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I am requesting you (being an administrator) to block the Nokia page from unregistered and new users. I am saying this because, looking at the revision history of the page, almost all edits by unregistered users were vandalism that were then reverted. This problem has been going on for a long time and I'm surprised that it still has not been blocked. If I recall, I'm pretty sure the page once was blocked to them indeed, but at the moment it's not (perhaps the block expired?). Look at the history yourself and you'll notice just how much it has been vandalised, so please consider blocking it from editing. Thanks. --G&CP (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. It's a bit of a close call, but I'd say the level of vandalism doesn't quite justify semi-protection at this time. I have the page watchlisted, so we'll see how the situation develops. Previous protections can be viewed here. Nice work with the article, by the way. Prolog (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prolog, Removing the links I provided was ignorant of you. See the brief description of why I added these and pull your head out of your ass and notice the two links which I suggested be removed which are no longer valid and of which one is now a spam site completely unrelated to motorcycling. The links I added are replacements with appropriate content to replace those that no longer are valid

I truly can't believe your ignorance. Notice the 2 links in the reference section of the enduro page.

1. 2 is no longer valid
2. 3 is now a spam site

The links I provided are equivelant replacements for these 2 links yet you remove these and leave the links mentioned above. That is the dumbest thing Ive ever seen!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartKaufman (talk • contribs)

Many dead links can be easily fixed. I have fixed the first one and removed the second as the source seemed like a copyright violation. I wish you good luck with your website, but it can not be referenced in a Wikipedia article because it does not qualify as a reliable source. Prolog (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Day of Anger.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what you are complaining about and why you are removing my edit about The Great Deception. I thought I had amended the wording and I do not understand your correction. Please show me how I should write the entry JK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joking99a (talk • contribs) 18:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition still had at least one sentence copy-pasted directly from the source article, and the whole section was just a summary of what the subject wrote in that particular piece. If you want to write an encyclopedic section on his views on the EU, you should find some third-party sources and cover his views in a more general sense. Prolog (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Violent Naples.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

An unprotection request was made at WP:RFPP, and your input has been requested here. Cheers! 2607:FB90:4A3B:11E7:0:4B:E2D7:1501 (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Prolog (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prolog.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, wanted to ask if a template with only 10 transclusions as {{Gcd}} needs any protection at all. I don't think it needs any. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. This template seems to have been deprecated, so I have unprotected it. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this edit, and the associated block. He seems to be rather busy today: 50.200.21.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked that one for a short period as well, although it seems like one of his/her dynamic IPs. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this same editor, could you take a look at the newly-created Beranton Whisenant article and tell me what you think? Specifically, the very first edit creating the article appears to fill it with all the same unrelated Obamacare vs Cutler, Soros and Seth Rich nonsense favored by our disruptive IP-hopper from the Lancaster, Pennsylvania area. This new article, however, was created by an established account - perhaps the sockmaster has revealed himself? Interested in your thoughts, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a rare slip-up from a careful sockmaster, but the paragraph was on DNC since June 3 so a clueless copypaste seems more likely. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. But I find the same-day appearance of the IP at the new article a bit harder to explain, and I note edits to political controversies and court cases in the registered user's history. I'll keep an eye on it and maybe do more in-depth checking eventually. Thanks for your input. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 173.67.158.0/23 and 173.67.160.0/21 for a month. There's almost no collateral damage so these ranges can be easily reblocked if necessary. Prolog (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prolog,

 A cursory review of your contributions to the Wikipedia Project indicates the vast preponderance of your effort and time is spent undoing the efforts of others.  You contribute very little, if any, original content or insight to the project's topics.  Rather, it's evident your role is best described as "Wikipedia Garbage Collector" without any creative license.  
 I'm hoping you'll share with us how you came to be so immersed in such a demeaning and frivolous use of your time.  Also, we're wondering if this is a paid position; it certainly should be.
 Thanks from us.

. . .67.1.240.198 (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you commented in the Scibaby SPI, saying that the accounts were clearly socks. If you don't mind, could you please email me with your rationale? Thanks very much.

GAB^gab 22:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. Prolog (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a longtime participant in this little fracas I'd be interested in comparing notes, if you're willing. Meanwhile this may be of interest. Pinging @GAB as well for any insights. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: There are a few differences, but I was confident enough to block. As per WP:BEANS, I'd prefer not to say too much, though. GAB^gab 02:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email as well. Prolog (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe another one? --JBL (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several strong candidates in the past few weeks but haven't been keeping track. A CU to flush out sleepers would likely be profitable. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Foghorn Leghorn and The Barnyard Dawg. Since you had some involvement with the Foghorn Leghorn and The Barnyard Dawg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

12.159.162.5 (talk · contribs) and 173.163.130.185 (talk · contribs) seem to be 50.122.98.253 (talk · contribs)

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both IPs blocked. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Prolog, thanks for taking care of the recreated Tobias Hübinette. A user alerted me on my page, and after taking a good look at 12Dagge's overall contributions, I've blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Good call. Thanks for the note, Prolog (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prolog. Re your deletion here. Would you object to that material on Marx being re-added? And if so, why? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. It is entirely up to the regular editors of the page to determine whether this content is accurate and appropriate. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll ask there. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the edit filter folks to see if they can tweak their filter to catch the latest wave of Cutler spam. He's been pretty active of late, hopefully there's something they can tweak to help. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you and Crow for your efforts. I see there's been a few hits today from 12.177.63.73, but I'm still keeping an eye on the 107.77.192.0/20 range. Prolog (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he's keeping you quite busy. I'm going to try to locate a barnstar suitable for someone who is dealing with disruption on a scale much greater than mere random vandalism. Until I find one, please accept my written thanks. Both you and Ravensfire. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Was there a CU behind this? I'm curious if there were any sleepers. Would appreciate your opinion on Dan Dulsok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No CU behind the block and I'm not sure if getting a sleeper check is worth the effort at this time. However, I have reunited Dan with his family in the afterblock. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Prolog, with all respect I (User Karter873) would apologize for my mischievousness on the page about Valtteri Bottas. I was just experimenting and the info came from Ferrari fans who hate him. Karter873 (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your original objection was that I did not cite reliable sources. Now you are saying I did, but you don't see examples of Twitter censorship in all of them (it appears you just searched for the words censor or censorship in each reference without reading and thinking. Each of the cited articles discusses Twitter and their acts of censorship (e.g. banning/suspending users, deleting content, locking tweets, targeting loosely defined "offensive", "hate speech", "propaganda" content, etc. Following the very definition of censor (to suppress or delete as objectionable) it is clear that each article discusses examples of Twitter doing just that. If you really need me to lists the details from each article, I can do that for you, but it seems redundant at this point. Please note, just because a specific journo doesn't use the word "censor" in his/her article doesn't mean the examples mentioned aren't valid, and to think otherwise shows incredible bias on your part. I am new at this process and have followed the feedback from Wikipedia editors on this matter, fixing each issue or concern as they are raised, and would like your approval to add back the edit. Kmita100 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did not read the WP:V link I provided: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." You also need to check out WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." And WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you want to claim in a Wikipedia article that Twitter engages in mass censorship, then you need a reliable source that says something very much like "Twitter engages in mass censorship." This is not optional. If you do not agree with the aforelinked core content policies of Wikipedia, you can always find a more suitable platform for your content. Prolog (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some follow-up questions (my last ones): 1) Just to be clear, hypothetically, if I was making an edit that stated that "Twitter engages in violent behavior" and then referenced numerous articles detailing how Twitter committed shootings, stabbings, and other assaults, but these cited sources didn't explicitly use the word "violence" or "violent" then that would NOT be good enough and the edits would be rejected because I was reaching a conclusion not clearly stated in the source. Please confirm.

2) If I detailed the specific forms of censorship in the wikipedia text to be more clear, for example "Twitter engages in mass censorship by deleting user accounts and content on a daily basis" and then referenced the source that notes that the ban 1 million accounts per day, would that be sufficient? Or should I embed the definition of "censor" in the sentence in order to show that connection more clearly? Kmita100 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Stick to what the source actually says. Not only is it more verifiable but more precise and unambiguous as well. 2) This is text-book synthesis; you are taking elements from different sources, adding your own view of the events ("mass censorship" and your choice of target article) and then combining it all into something that is actually not said by any of the sources. None of that is appropriate. In fact, this is a good example of content that is simultaneously in violation of all three core content policies. Prolog (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly sticking to the sources, how's this for a revamped edit:

Twitter has gone from bastion of free speech to global censor. ^[1] As of July 2018, Twitter was deleting more than one million accounts per day, in what some called a "purge". ^[2] In 2017, Twitter expanded what constitutes hateful and harmful behavior on its platform, and began enforcing stricter rules concerning it. "Hateful imagery" was hidden, with violators banned or permanently suspended. Twitter has defined hateful imagery as "logos, symbols, or images whose purpose is to promote hostility and malice against others based on their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin". ^[3] Twitter has also suspended accounts of high-profile users for violating their rules against "hateful conduct" and sparked a debate about double standards.^[4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmita100 (talk • contribs)

The first source is an op-ed. It is reliable for the attributed opinions of its writer, but not for facts. Something like the following would be appropriate as long as the due weight clause is satisfied: Former Catalan MP Alfons López Tena criticized the criteria and algorithms Twitter employs for account suspensions, stating that it "has gone from bastion of free speech to global censor." The second source states that "the targets of the latest mass suspensions appear to be primarily bots and spam accounts" and does not call Twitter's actions censorship in any way, so it is misleading to present this after the first sentence without including the context of the "purge". It seems like a good source for Twitter or Twitter suspensions. The third one looks good to me except for the weak connection to the main article on censorship. The fourth one is probably good enough (see WP:RSP#Sources) but, again, the premise that the bans and suspensions constitute censorship is not supported by the source so the content must be placed in the appropriate article. Prolog (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know why you're saying the dailywire is an unreliable source. Out of all the online sources like vice and Vox and huffingtonpost and so on and so on and so on, what is it about the daily wire that makes it unreliable? --2001:8003:4023:D900:5CE9:A2E6:C9DC:872F (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. The site does not qualify as reliable because it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fact, it has a "tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified".[8] There are plenty of reputed newspapers and other reliable sources that can be used in the article. Also, the addition of lengthy quotes from only one side of the debate creates a neutrality problem. Prolog (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mika Brzezinski. Politrukki (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Shrike (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting up an outdated picture and birthday for the page Allie Long. The picture is old and not allowed to be used because it is false advertising of player representation. This players Birthday is 1989. Stop producing false information. Usawinsgold2019 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I picked you at random from names of contributors.
I've contributed only a little over at WikiTravel.
Computerization seems to have sprawled all over everything everywhere.
I'm always very busy.
I hope to write for Wikipedia a little.
Maybe you can assist me in the smallest way as I begin on this.
Box21A (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Night of the Unholy Flames.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My memory sadly failed me and I originally left a note on Ponyo's page about this, but our favorite LUNAtic has returned to Jonathan Luna. His latest diversion was pretty thoroughly smacked around by the judge so he's apparently returned to more familiar haunts where he only gets WP:RBI'd, not called "vexatious" by someone that can actually cause real-world consequences. Not the usual IP, but still geolocates to Pennsylvania. Just a heads up ... Ravensfire (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That court docket was an entertaining read and led me to this piece about him in the Inquirer. I checked the old ranges and did not find any recent activity, but at least he remains predictable with his targets. I'll keep an eye out. Thanks for the note, Prolog (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Companeros.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fire Burns in Our Hearts.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Your essay (really a comprehensive guide) on diacritics is PHENOMENAL. Thank you for writing it. You've done a great service with logic and style! Ocaasi t | c 23:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am glad you found it helpful. Prolog (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see on the talk page you previously reverted edits that are quite similar to what has recently been readded to the article.[9] I would appreciate if you could take a look. -- 109.76.212.43 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He popped up again today 107.77.202.149 with the usual nonsense, but mentioned a new case. I'm bored, so look at his filings there on CourtListener. His proposed judgement (scroll to page 47) is just fantastic!

• [7] Order certain judges to pay twice their daily salary to the innosense project (sic) until they resign
• [24] Order China to allow residents of Hong Kong to become a territory of the US (seriously!)
• [33] Rename Lord and Taylor stores to Lord and Breonna Taylor
• [50] Wikipedia must reveal name, address and email of RAVENSFIRE and PROLOG (but nobody else, I'm touched!)
• [60] Boeing should bring back the L-1011 (wait, that's the LOCKHEED plane...)
• [19] and of course, other remedies the court deems appropriate

You just can't make some of this stuff up! Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please check my reply on my talk page. I'm writing here as I'm not sure if you saw it. Michael60634 (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of discretionary sanctions in that area. Now that I am, please look at the behaviour of the edtorwho created those articles 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. The user's other edits were a bit problematic too, but at least they've got some pointers on their user talk now. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

72.142.100.254 has requested an unblock via UTRS appeal #66710. As you may not have access to UTRS, I'll note they claim this is a school. That seems plausible and so I'd like to modify the block to be anon-only (account creation blocked) and point them to WP:ACC to get an account. Would you be okay with that? -- Yamla (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that seems sensible. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my comments on the talk page for RevDig? ECP applies to the main article only, no? I don't think we should be silencing talk page discussion.LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Sorry, but as noted on WP:GS/RUSUKR: "non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions." Prolog (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I guess I'll just have to re-raise the issue after I make 500 edits! thanks. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI @Prolog You may need to delete my NPOV noticeboard discussion on the same topic. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were no replies, so I removed it. You are of course very welcome to create an RM later on. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if it is possible, can you put the Nord Stream articles (Nord Stream, Nord Stream 1, and Nord Stream 2) under the sanctions? As you have already seen, the contentious edits are making their way to the gas pipe articles, probably since the gas leak article is under ECP. – robertsky (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I didn't expect the spillover. Those articles could be protected too. I'll have to personally decline, however, because I made a number of edits to Hersh's article and the incoming edits to these pages mostly seem to revolve around his claims. Note that the articles are covered by the sanctions even if there is currently no ECP in place. Prolog (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what does "failed verification" mean? Salfanto (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cited failed to support the content added to the article. Prolog (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was wondering about your indefinite ECP of Sea of Azov back on January 30 in response to an IP vandal persistently edit-warring (which was promptly and effectively responded to by editors).

Semi-protection would seem to have been sufficiently adequate to prevent such an incident, no? ECP massively limits the ability of editors to make constructive contributions to an article that is not primarily about the sanctioned topic.

Just because such a drastic action is fully authorized by WP:RUSUKR doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

Can you elaborate on your rationale for taking this action?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have semi'd in some cases, such as with new or low-traffic articles and current events, but ECP is the standard and the incoming edits were mostly about the war. Prolog (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking through the edit history, there were high levels of IP vandalism, but also useful small contributions.

EC still seems a bit overkill IMHO. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My note on that talk page is just a warning that the Wikipedia NPOV mandatory rule is heavily violated. Don't teach me about wrongs and rights. 109.93.141.138 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Why? Jacobin is on the approved Wikipedia source list. Chances last a finite time (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me where the restored material was already "properly covered in the body"? Thanks, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The exchange is from the Biden-Scholz press conference covered at Nord Stream 2#Stance of Germany and role of the SPD. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I agree that the body would have been a better place for the quote that I restored.

Whether a full quote or an oblique reference would be better there is something else, but I’m half asleep at the moment so probably best not to do anything like that in a CT area until I’m well rested and have clearer judgment. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Larin Paraske, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The 10th Victim.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]