User talk:Prolog

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 this log). 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]

On 13 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michèle Mouton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that rally driver Michèle Mouton and her all-female team won their class at the 1975 24 Hours of Le Mans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michèle Mouton.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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]

On 30 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rally Finland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Rally Finland began as a qualifying event for the Monte Carlo Rally? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rally Finland.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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 [email protected] (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 [email protected]. 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]

On 11 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alpine Rally, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that former Olympic alpine skier Ian Appleyard was the first of three drivers to win the coveted Coupe d'Or at the Alpine Rally? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alpine Rally.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

On 11 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ian Appleyard, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that former Olympic alpine skier Ian Appleyard was the first of three drivers to win the coveted Coupe d'Or at the Alpine Rally? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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 [email protected] 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.

Your message[edit]

"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"

Response[edit]

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.

Wikipedia policy[edit]

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."

Summary[edit]

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]

Second response[edit]

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]

Third response[edit]

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 [email protected]
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at [email protected]

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]

On 9 October 2012, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Sébastien Loeb, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--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]