User:Prodego/archive/41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

VandalProof

I am having difficulties w/ the "Connect to VandalProof" dialog box, can you inform me how to appropriately log in to VandalProof?

-Steptrip 23:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


I followed all the instructons and I still could not log in.
-Steptrip 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not use IE7 (or any other version of IE, for that matter) and I just changed my signature.
-Steptriptalk 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Do I have to manually go into IE and log into Wikipedia to use VandalProof as an alternative to logging into VandalProof using the aforesaid dialog box?
-Steptriptalk 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that did not work.
-Steptriptalk 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed my signature (unified it and decreased the Font Size) and here it is -Steptrip(talk)

-Steptrip(talk) 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome.
-Steptrip(talk) 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof Rejection

I am disappointed to be rejected again for VandalProof. The first rejection said only that I didn't have enough edits. Now I do: I've done more general editing and I've reverted a lot of vandalism using popups, which is faster than doing it by hand, but not by much. Reverting edits this way for another month is not what I was hopong for... The "new user" restriction should be more detailed in the registration step instructions. John Cardinal 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

Hi. When I get on VP, it will work fine for 1-5 minutes, but then I will get an error that says

Run-time error '91': 
Object varible or With Block varible not set.

What does this mean and how can I fix it?--CWY2190TC 01:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

re: monobook.js

thanks --frothT 02:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Plainlinks

Thanks. I'd always wondered if their was a MediaWiki hack to do away with those. I'm thinking of doing a userpage redesign soonish anwyay so I'll keep your tip in mind :) -- Longhair\talk 02:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Nice userpage you have there btw... :) -- Longhair\talk 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


I do not consider users not having a say in the matters of what is supposed to be "free encyclopedia" nonsense!

I'm sorry but I do not consider users not having any kind of say about what articles remain and which do not nonsense...

Nardman1

Hi. I was just going to post on Nardman1 (talk • contribs • count)'s talk page, and your note was just above mine declining his VandalProof application. This may be out of line for me to say, but I'll say this (completely unsolicited by the way), that Nardman1 may have fewer than 250 mainspace edits (216, which is very close), but he has proven himself to be of great value to the Mixed Drinks WikiProject as an editor. Whenever he does reapply, he really should be accepted, because most of his edits that I have seen have been good ones (though I haven't examined it in detail or that recently). He does a lot of patrolling for copyrighted images and vandalism, as well as performing other wikignome tasks. Good tools in good hands are a good thing. :-) I know you just go by edit counts, but I believe that people should count more than their edits alone count. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 11:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

VPRF Problem Solved!!!!

I downloaded the first version, the one that caused all the problems, through Firefox. About an hour after you referred me to AmiDaniel, I went onto IE and re-downloaded the file and now it works perfectly and I absolutely love this tool.

-Steptrip(talk) 14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, however I am just glad that it works. Could it have been that since IE was the required browser for VPRF, that it would not function properly if it was downloaded through anything but IE, regardless that all the files on AmiDaniel.com were exactly the same?
-Steptrip(talk) 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Billy Hathorn's comments at ArbCom

I have just noticed that Billy Hathorn posted comments at ArbCom because I was reviewing the history. That was the only way to tell, because you quickly deleted them. BenBurch has been "sitting on" the Free Republic article. With the sole exception of a single question that he asked, the comments made by Billy Hathorn are directly relevant to the ArbCom case, and why arbitrators need to intervene. Also, there is a prohibition at the top of dispute resolution pages against the removal of material from the page. Please replace it, and remove the question if you insist. Thank you. Dino 15:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 7 12 February 2007 About the Signpost
US government agencies discovered editing Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fallujah, Hidden Massacre

Where did the protection request go? You said it was in the wrong section, so please explain more.--Shakujo 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, I think an AfD is quite a useful weapon when it comes to war-editing, especially for topics which might be labelled anti-american. Is it possible to intervene in an AfD discussion because impartial consensus is difficult to achieve? There is a case that simply deleting this article is an act of censorship and not NPOV.--Shakujo 05:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I requested protection and at the same time another editor nominated for AfD. Did you look at the page itself? This was big news at the time because of political intervention in Italy and a larger debate on censorship with regards to Iraq. Yes, the article is POV, but it still deserves to be kept.--Shakujo 05:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I saw this version when I looked. I will not disrupt AfD to protect a page, that would not be appropriate. Instead leave your comment on the AfD page. Prodego talk 16:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thankyou for your attention.--Shakujo 05:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


From Bok269

Hey, sorry its been a while. Ive been busy with work and will be for a while so Im only going to be able to devote a limited amount of time to wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bok269 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Danny Wool's communication re Carolyn's edits

"Danny did talk to me about it. He confirmed some things, although he did not mention Office status."

What did he say? I am guessing that It was nothing exculpatory in regards to DeanHinnen, or I presume you would have posted it. Thanks. - FAAFA 21:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia, Board of Trustees

Hi again, Prodego. I wanted to know out of curiousity, if Jimmy Wales could still decide to disolve the whole Wikimedia, board of trustees, or veto their decisions even if with a concensus among overyone elso on the board. I know that is the case, or similar to the case of for the Arbitration Committee.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Essjay already told me everything he knew, and I saw your response on his talk page as well. I guess the Foundation's, Board of Trustees are ultimately in charge of Wikimedia, and that Jimmy Wales didn't want himself or another individual to be absolutely in charge all of Wikimedia and it's projects.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)