User talk:Alison

Archives

2004

Entire year

2005

Jan • Jun

Jul • Dec

2006

Jan • Jun

Jul • Dec

2007

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2008

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2009

Jan • Jun

Jul • Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2010

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2011

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2012

Entire year

2013

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2014

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep • Dec

2015

Entire year

2016

Entire year

2017

Entire year

2018

Entire year

2019

Entire year

2020

Entire year

2021

Entire year

2022

Entire year

2023

Entire year

2024

Entire year

Thank you!

Well .... where to start?

I just want to thank everyone - I can't possibly reply to everybody :) - for being so loving and supportive over the last few days. I said what I had to say and left for a few days, just to get some breathing space. I'd actually been thinking seriously about leaving over the last few weeks, as the unwanted attentions from certain people and the pressures of the current ArbCom case were beginning to wear me down. I truly wasn't expecting the kind of responses that came flooding in. I really don't know what to say. I've archived everything, my original message and all your responses, as well as a message to others at the top, at User:Alison/Depression. As I said, I hope others in a similar situation can read this, understand it, and take some comfort from it all.

Love you all, friends :)

-- Alison ^❤

PS: I guess I'd better get back to work, then! WP:RPP is calling out to me :)

PPS: Amit, it's lovely to see you back on here, too, with job intact!

Troubles ArbCom

Hi Alison, I noticed you have had dealings with this editor. You may be aware of this recent unpleasantness which I will pursue myself, as this is not the first time this editor has abuse there tools. They have been warned before and I know they have a history of this sort of thing. What I would like is for them to be included on the Troubles ArbCom, as the articles would come under that heading. My approach with this editor will be done strictly by the book, as evidenced here and regardless of the attempt to provoke me with there reply I will maintain my cool.Take care Regards --Domer48 (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer, I agree that something strange is going on here. I need to investigate in more detail later but will look into it. Crazy-busy right now - Alison ^❤ 21:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison, Please, this is getting out of hand here, can something not be done. This type of name calling is a straw too many. --Domer48 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That.. way over the line. I've spoken to R.Fiend on his talk page, but content aside (again, not familiar with the situation), he needs to dial it wayyyyyy back. SirFozzie (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen folks thanks for that, I know no one on the Troubles ArbCom would get away with that carry on. I got blocked for less by this editor, and they abuse and revert at will. I'd put a warning template on thei page again, but what is the point, they would just delete it and block me again. Sorry for having to bring this to your page, and thanks both of you again. --Domer48 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer, first of all, let me just say, that the REASON you were blocked was valid, even if the blocker wasn't. WP:3RR is an electric fence. You shall not break 3 Reverts within 24 hours for ANY reason whatsoever (except reverting blatant vandalism, and if it's that blatant, you should be bringing it up on AIV or ANI to get the other editor/IP address blocked). This wasn't the situation. Them's the rules, man. you did revert four times (for different reasons, admittedly), to your preferred version. I would suggest that you, Dunc and VK don't continue to edit war here (you can be blocked for editwarring EVEN if you don't break 3RR). If the situation is so intolerable, you can always create an article content Request for comment or an administrator conduct RfC. SirFozzie (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fozz, I'm not going to play word games with you. I do respect ye! But come on "you did revert four times (for different reasons, admittedly), to your preferred version." Preferred version, ah hello. You mean the correct version according to wiki policies, WP:V, WP:RS. Now picture me laughing when I say this, And I was Shafted. All things aside, thanks for the advice, I did ask John for advice on that. Now do you want to apply the same logic of "you did revert four times (for different reasons, admittedly), to your preferred version," to my new best friend on the Easter Rising or is it just for the lower ranks. LOL --Domer48 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I was away for most of the drama here. - Alison ^❤ 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, glad your back LOL. Just following on from my last post, I posted this last night. With my last block in mind and my dialog with Fozz. "you did revert four times (for different reasons, admittedly), kind a stuck in my head if you know what I mean. Based on that report I posted and the comment from Fozz "you can be blocked for editwarring EVEN if you don't break 3RR" I think that two stes of ruls are being applied. I will more than likley go with John's suggestion but can you look at the 3 rr for those on the Troubles ArbCom list, in light of this situation. Thanks, and Regards --Domer48 (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Think this says it all dont you Domer48 (talk) All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others-- BigDunc (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the way I see it, all those involved in the ArbCom are subject to the penelties, and yet anyone not involved can just bounce in a run amock, and we get the bad end of the stick. In such a clear case of edit warring, the editor should be place on the ArbCom list, and be subject to the same things as the rest of us. By and large, all involved in the ArbCom have being editing away and trying their best not to create problems, and we at lest deserve some credit for that. --Domer48 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ali, you must admit, Dunc is a very blunt way dose have a point.LOL, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Final Question

What do you mean by archived? Does this mean they won't appear on the net?

fansoffans1983 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansoffans1983 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Google doesn't really spider userspace here thanks to the robots.txt file, so it shouldn't pick up all the talk page entries. I wouldn't worry too much about it - Alison ^❤ 22:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1

Hey Alison, just a heads up that at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, Aatomic1 (talk · contribs) is attempting to remove him/herself from the probation you put into place there. Metros (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Alison. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. (yay, I templated a regular ;)).. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_more_eyes_related_to_Easter_Rising_and_Tom_Clarke_.28Irish_republican.29 SirFozzie (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Foz, thank you so much for standing up for me in my absence and for taking on this contentious 'troubles' case (and I know you're burned out on all this nonsense, too) - I really appreciate it! Thanks ;) - Alison ^❤ 22:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

6 Colors

Hi Alison, I have been working on the backlog at WP:CV. Came across this article, permission was claimed and the user indicated that he sent the email. Can you please check OTRS... Thanks and cheers!--DO11.10 (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I ran a search and I'm not finding any entries in OTRS relating to this article. Really sorry :( Can you ask if they have an OTRS ticket number? They should have been assigned one by the clerk when they received a response - Alison ^❤ 22:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 00:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Awww - thank you!! :) - Alison ^❤ 16:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Heya

User:I need a name over on GA.Wiki is almost definitely NOT the same one here. Folks have been creating accounts to harass him here and elsewhere apparently. I need a Name confirms that User:You Need a Name, who is claiming to be him, is definitely NOT him (and he's reverted You Need a Name's edit) SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me, Foz, and blocked - míle maith agat! ;) - Alison ^❤ 06:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

One over at pt., as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

a check please

Hi Alison, hate to bother you but with regard to this [1], a new user has sprung up today, Makemewish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can you check on it, or should I file another CU? Thanks R. Baley (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed you were offline, so reported at ANI. R. Baley (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed and  IP blocked - Alison ^❤ 05:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) - Alison ^❤ 05:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777

Per your comments at the AN/I thread, I have unblocked her with the proviso she refrain from editing that article in the meantime. Daniel Case (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Daniel. That's excellent - Alison ^❤ 16:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (just woke up :) )

Copyvio?

I'm going to take you up on your kind offer of assistance :)

So how does one determine copyright violations? I'm looking at E. W. Bullinger, in which there are several sentences that are exactly the same as on [2]. But a) it's certainly not a major part of the article, and b) I don't know which came first - we've had the article since 2003, and the "offending" sentences seem to have been introduced back then: [3]. So how does one address that? SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

An Introduction To Wikipedia

Hey ho there! We haven't really corresponded on this site, but, Alison, as an admin, could you possibly do a favour for me? I notice most users recieve a warm welcome to this site on their talk page and such, telling them what guidelines there are and etc. I did not recieve one. Out of kindness, could you please give me a belated "welcome" on my talk page? I haven't read all the guidelines because I amn't sure how many there are, so it would be even more appreciated in that way. Cheers!

Merry Christmas!

Sporker (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I speak Scottish Gaelic, and I notice you gave an invitation to users who do to help you out in translating some kind of Wiki-related stuff on the SG Wiktionary...I can not do it now but would love to at a later stage. Sporker (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, looks like you've gone and done it! Thank you very much! :D Sporker (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by 64.53.2.215

See here. Since this involved a checkuser and the IP would naturally be supposed to be kept private, you might be better able to tell what's up here and provide any admin with relevant info (if that were to be me, you can send email ... I will keep the case confidential). Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to check this while you're at it: User talk:4.152.165.81. nat.utoronto 03:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. I've commented on both cases. The latter one isn't my checkuser case, but the former one is. As the former blocked editor is largely not forthcoming with an explanation and refuses to identify, there's not much that can be done there - Alison ^❤ 19:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Rklawton

Ali; I'm looking at the options here - I have tried to follow the steps in setting up an RfC re this editor for abuse of Admin powers and I note that to be "activated" it needs a co-signer. How does one alert the interested sections of the community to the existence of the RfC proposal without falling foul of some Wiki rule about canvassing? - Sarah777

I'm also concerned at the suitability of User:Philip Baird Shearer (another Admin editing this "Massacres" article). There was a clear WP:Edit war edit by User:Jack.Hartford which Philip ignored even though he himself edit the same section, Irish Rebellion of 1641, shortly after the warring. Again, I have asked him to revert the warring edit on his page and await the response.

Regards - Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it User:R. fiend appears to have blocked Domer48 in similar circumstances to the Lawton block. And this Admin obviously takes some pride in his aggressive adminship as you see here (Sarah777 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

This appears to be a big and growing problem on Wiki; we need to do something about it in general terms. Perhaps like 3RR a warring Admin who blocks and edits on the same article should get an automatic one-month loss of Admin powers? (Sarah777)

Hi Sarah. Ummm ... there's a lot going on here. Firstly, admins are just editors - they can edit what they like, get into edit-wars, get blocked, etc, etc, just like any other editor and it's important to bear that in mind. Admins are editors, too :) However, admins tend to be held to a higher standard than other editors and are aware they need to be absolutely open and fair in whatever they do. There's little wiggle-room for arrogance and aggression when it comes to admin actions. When editing articles, we are just human, same as anyone else!

As regards the behaviour of certain admins; if you have any issues and you have done your best to resolve them, you could either bring them to the attention of the admin community at WP:ANI or file a Request for Comment regarding either the editor/admin or the article/situation. You just have to have all your homework done and everything documented with diffs, etc, and have other editors who are willing to endorse that. It sounds like you may have both here, looking at your talk page. If you need help filing an RFC, I can possibly help. Needless to say, I'm neutral in all this and, as you know, if you're off on something here. I'll sure let you know. You know that!!! :)

In the case of Rklawton, I should tell you that the guy is on vacation now and won't be around to answer a case. He told me this early on in yesterday's crisis, BTW. It's not that he's gone AWOL or anything - he's just away for a break. I know about the User:R. fiend thing and Domer, etc and I'm keeping a close watch on the whole thing, too - Alison ^❤ 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Shearer

Ali, I am now formally reporting to you User:Philip Baird Shearer for WP:edit warring and abuse of Admin powers on List of massacres (Sarah777 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Hi Sarah. Thanks for mentioning it here and I'll take a look in a few mins. While I see this editor has been editing List of massacres, I don't see any (ab-)use of his admin tools over there. Can you show me where? - Alison ^❤ 20:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I took a look and it seems that Philip is making constructive edits over there. He's done a nice job of cleaning up messy refs. He has stepped in (where RK left off) and removed the Fallujah section. However - he's only done this once and has brought his detailed rationale to the talk page where anyone can address the issues he has with the cites. He says there may be issues around them being a "reliable source". None of this seems to be off-the-wall unreasonable or anything - Alison ^❤ 20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

He refused to reply to me comments on his page explaining my edits, so inability to communicate isn't the trademark of a good Admin surely?; he repeated a bad-revert by Lawton that another Admin has already reversed; he added back a name for the killing of settlers in Ireland in the 1641 rebellion without any explanation; a name which I had deleted with a clear explanation and which the original author has now himself agreed was a wrong name. I am only looking at his edits where I am involved and I find bias and very poor judgement. I don't think either himself or (obviously) Lawton are suitable people to be mentoring this particular article. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays Alison. Have a Happy New Year !

^{Rlevse:) (T/C)}

Buon Natale e buon anno! Giano (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both :) That's lovely .... - Alison ^❤ 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ali, same from me from sunny/cloudy and definitely hot Laos. All the best ,The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wild sex at 7-11

One night in the summer of 1997 I had wild sex with a strange girl named Alison in a white lexus in the suburbs of Philly, by any chance could that be you? She was very hot.--Zimbobman (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Bye bye, NisarKand. To answer your question, it must have been so utterly non-memorable that it slipped my mind. So sorry! - Alison ^❤ 02:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Owned 13:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkleheimer (talk • contribs)

Weird, I signed, but my name didn't show up, only the date. D=Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Famguy231

Famguy231 is requesting unblock. Please feel free to comment at his talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Thanks

Thank you for welcoming me. I have just read the tutorial and some other pages and have learned a great deal about Wikipedia already! Blurple (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays Alison. Have a Happy New Year !

^{Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C)}

ANI question

Hope this isn't canvassing; I'm only asking one editor. But I saw you recently comment on a similar matter, and I believe this needs to be addressed (it's currently in danger of being ignored): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#GusChiggins21_blocked_for_edit_warring_by_involved_admin. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser poll or vote

Hi Alison...can you link me to the supporting poll or vote that was used to grant you checkuser privileges?--MONGO (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ali's still asleep, probably (PST slacker ;), but the decision was made by ArbCom, and you can see the request [4] here. SirFozzie (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi MONGO. As Foz states, there is no poll nor vote for Checkuser on the English Wikipedia. I was appointed by the Arbitration Committee to that role, as per our checkuser policy. I guess if you have any questions around my suitability, you could directly contact either ArbCom or the Ombudsman commission. Have I done something to cause you concern? - Alison ^❤ 17:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And what about the part about being a PST slacker? ;) SirFozzie (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! I just spotted your little bit of "vandalism" :) Nothing gets past your eagle-eye! - Alison ^❤ 17:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC) (just woke up. How'd you guess? :) )

Oh, because it's the day after christmas, and if I had my choice, I'd be asleep in bed as late as possible, instead of at work? ;) SirFozzie (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My concern was related to your participation in a website with a known history of attacking our contributors. I am not accusing you of also joining in on these attacks, but I can't see what benefit could be derived to this website by contributing, even in the most positive of ways, on a website that attacks our contributors.--MONGO (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just like every editor at WP shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of our worst users (for example, all Wikipedia editors shouldn't be judged by the one who introduced the John Seigenthaler, Sr vandalism that got WP into so much hot water, not all WR editors should be tarred under the same brush. if they have something useful to say, both Alison and I are willing to listen to and reply to their comments. If they act stupid and ridiculous, we tell them just that as well. sticking our fingers in our collective ears and going "lalalalala, I can't hear you" won't help anything. SirFozzie (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Well, in that case you'd better run the same question by a few other checkusers, too, as well as certain members of ArbCom. MONGO, I can understand your concern but note that I am non-partisan in all matters. It may sound corny but websites don't attack people, other people do. It's that simple. I firmly believe there *is* benefit to be derived from participating there, even in the minimal way that I do. I spend a large amount of my time here dealing with people who have been attacked by others here on WP. That's one of the reasons I have been entrusted with checkuser privs. Ask the Oversight team about the requests I put in to them - the last one being just yesterday. Sadly, too, there are enough genuine contributors on Wikipedia being attacked and hounded off the project from within - we don't need WR to perform that function, unfortunately. In closing, I will say that I am not and never have been in the business of "attacking others", and I choose to associate with whom I will. There are particularly nasty people on WR, there are genuinely nice folks. The exact same applies to Wikipedia - it's the human condition. All we can do is be our best to each other, kitschy and all as that may sound - Alison ^❤ 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And as a matter of interest, what does any of this have to do with my having checkuser privileges? Have you any issues over what I have done so far? - Alison ^❤ 18:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't even suspect that you have misused the checkuser tools.

I disagree that it is worth your time to try and set the story straight with anyone involved on WR...I would liken it to trying to explain calculus to carrots. The fact that I would have no qualms with WR being shut down completely, that SirFozzie also participates in WR and he also signed onto an Rfc that was brought against me for fighting against linking to that website has not gone unnoticed. So what we have here is my concrete belief that any participation in a website with a well known history of outting and attacks is not a good thing against your and SirFozzie's comments that you are trying to the right thing by setting the stories straight there means I doubt we'll agree. I would urge both of you to cease contributing to that website...why on Earth should we make them believe they matter by conjoling with them?--MONGO (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I was a Wiki-Admin before I ever posted on WR, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, it was a certain banned user, JB196, who started posting there, that led me to posting there, to refute what he said. Let me be utterly blunt, MONGO. There are certain personalities over there that annoy me greatly. There are people here on Wikipedia who annoy me greatly as well. (no, I am not numbering you amongst that). I, like others, do not suffer fools and prevaricators gladly. If someone is acting like a buffoon and the village idiot, I will damn well call it to their attention.

But as to the situation, what I feel is the following. We have an opportunity to get our side of the situation out there as well. If we do not at least attempt to refute them, to discuss with them, to, as I said, stick our fingers in our ears and pretend not to hear them, we fail to hear an unpopular truth because we don't like who said it, it's to our (Wikipedia's) detriment.

I know it won't set your mind at ease, but I hope that it explains where we're coming from, that ignoring something isn't going to make it go away, but only looks like we have something to hide. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and all that.

BTW, I did not fail to miss your insinuation about my talking there, combined with the fact I placed a statement against you in a RfC. I will make the same offer I make everyone who I engage in discussion. If you think my actions are wrong, I have a fairly simple set of conditions for being open to recall. if any five editors in good standing request it, I will voluntarily relinquish my administrator rights. No need for long, drawn out RfC/ArbCom processes. You think I'm off base, you can have me recalled. SirFozzie (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is my choice of wording that seems to make the both of you defensive. I have zero intention of trying to get checkuser or admin tools revoked on either of you. I take, obviously, a very hardline stance on websites of the nature we are discussing, so I see any participation in them to be akin to aiding and abetting trolls. Your status as admins here and contributors there only gives them the notability they desire and also feeds them, even though you are there to defend us. For the record, I am well aware of Alison's excellent record of defending those that are being harassed. I would have zero complaints about WR if indeed it did do a real review...but most of the conversation there, even those that seem to start discussions with good intentions, quickly drift into never never land, full of rants and ridiculous commentary by many a Wikipedia banned editor. I don't condemn either of you for trying to set the record stright there, but I think it is a lost cause, and a waste of your time.--MONGO (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we'll agree to disagree, then. Hope you had a happy and safe holidays. SirFozzie (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe that checkusers should have to go through the same process as admins and bureaucrats (cf. with the modern way of selecting the Senate, vs. the 19th century method). That said, I believe Alison was an excellent choice. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind endorsement and, FWIW, I agree with your idea of a selection process - Alison ^❤ 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As Foz says, we'll have to agree to disagree. The "calculus to carrots" comment is ... umm ... somewhat ill-advised, given there are actually some very smart people over there - for good or ill - and it behoove you to not be as dismissive as all that. Ignore at your peril, and all that. IMO, what feeds them and gives them status is policies like BADSITES, etc. Things like that (and indeed, this conversation) provides more drama and visibility than anything else, really. I think many WP editors who do post there have enough smarts about them to be able to discern the useful commentary from the "rants and ridiculous commentary", of which we have both on WP, too. I understand why you feel so strongly about it and yes, there are some truly despicable people over there but that is not the complete picture. And onwards we go .... - Alison ^❤ 21:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh...if that website ever had a chance of being a real review, it was lost long ago by the sustained efforts by so many contributors there to out our contributors. Our perspectives offer a rather interesting contrast of sorts, whereby I find the overwhelming comments on that website to be borderline sociopathic and moronic, you find them to at least be occasionally intelligent. They are, from my perspective, mostly illinformed, so perhaps your efforts to set the story straight isn't futile. Anyway, best wishes.--MONGO (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I think we all mean well here, MONGO, though we come from different perspectives. Best wishes to you, too :) - Alison ^❤ 23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't point out that you are a WR contributor...you did...here. I was responding to that comment you made there...and so what do you do? You turn around, go post at WR and assume I have some kind of nefarious motives that I might be trying to put you in a bad light, when all I was trying to do was get reassurance (publically) that you fully intend to abide by our rights to privacy. Alison, you know as well as I do about accountability...and admins and checkusers should be prepared to reassure us that they intend to continue to abide by our policies. If my questioning of you seemed inappropriate due to the public nature of posting here rather than asking you privately, it was only done as a way for you to provide a public reassurance. So the next time (if you are ever questioned) you can direct them here as a reminder. I didn't mean to take you to task...but if you wish to assume that, there is nothing I can do about it...assumption of bad faith of my actions seems rather normative these days by lots of folks, so you're not alone. But indeed, I expect the WR contributors to assume the worst of me...there are several there that are now banned by my actions...so it's not likely they have any great affection for my actions...I am hoping that you understand where I am coming from and not lend an ear to the latest "lets crucify MONGO thread" that is posted there.--MONGO 08:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done...

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

Oh! Thank you, Will :) What did I do? - Alison ^❤ 17:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Argh, stupid mediawiki parsing. the WEA protection, by the way. Will ^(talk) 19:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Spidering Issue

"Google doesn't really spider userspace here thanks to the robots.txt file, so it shouldn't pick up all the talk page entries. I wouldn't worry too much about it" - Alison ❤ 22:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. See google links below

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammer1980/archive2

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BigDunc

Alison

fansoffans1983

Hi again. Well, as a courtesy, I have blanked the comments at User_talk:Hammer1980/archive2. I cannot blank the comments at User talk:BigDunc as that editor has explicitly stated that he does not want this done, and I must respect that. Please note that I've gone overboard already on what I'm able to do here and note that when you posted those comments here, you agreed to license them under the GNU Free Documentation License (it's on each editing page) and thus, they cannot really be retracted at this point - Alison ^❤ 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

...for this.[5] People have really been going nuts around here lately; there's a level of divisiveness and acrimony across the project that goes beyond the usual squabbling. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, Alison

I'm speaking only for myself, but my interest in that article comes from it seeming that one group of editors was simply running over the other group, enforcing a "consensus" that did not exist. I am sorry for any headaches I caused you. Mr Which??? 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

protection request follow-up

Greetings. Alison. Thanks for putting the protection on the Pope John Paul II page. I was the one that requested it, and I was pleased to see it accepted...things needed to cool down a little. Unfortunately, one user got in an edit after my request but before your protection. Eleland reverted back to an unfortunate POV version. I know that the protection is not an endorsement of the "frozen" version, but since this is a rather well-read article, I wanted to see if you would pop in and undo just that last one revert edit. If that's not appropriate, I understand. But if you don't mind, that would be appreciated, so at least the version that will be there for a week will be the more neutral, uncontroversial version. If you can't I still appreciate you taking action so quickly on the request to protect. Cheers! --Anietor (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

While I'd love to be able to help, I absolutely cannot revert to any other revision post-protection. It's totally against the rules. The sole purpose of my protect was to stop a disruptive edit war. The onus is now on you guys to iron out your differences on the talk page. It's time to discuss the matter and reach some sort of agreement - Alison ^❤ 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison, you're supposed to link to m:The Wrong Version, not give out an actually helpful, serious answer to his query. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is Ali when the words are downright offensive and provocative. (Sarah777 (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Then, Sarah, best thing at this time is to follow up on Talk:Pope John Paul II and work with the others here to come to some agreement on the wording. I've no opinion either way and my protection of the page makes no endorsement either way of the wording - Alison ^❤ 07:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Check User for Kirbytime

Atari400 (talk · contribs) is definitely Kirbytime. I'm good in catching his socks. The reason he slipped by early with this username is that he was nice then so we didnt notice but now he's coming around to his typical editing behavior. You said in the check user request that the account is stale. The report wasn't filed correctly with all the diffs. How is this case handled now that the account is stale? I can provide all the needed diffs which will show very clearly that its him and I'm 100% sure its him. Is there anything that can be done? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is stale, as the IP information would be in the checkuser logs as Jayjg, Deskana, Dmcdevit and Voice of All have all, at some stage, run checks. No comment on the {{fishing}} part, but I just found it interesting. I for one also think this user is Kirbytime, but like others I was waiting for checkuser confirmation just in case (as this user is now "established"). Like Matt, I would value your input as to where to take this. Daniel 08:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)