User talk:Alison: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	August 2004 · August 2005; September 2005 · April 2006; April 2006 · July 2006; August 2006 · November 2006; November 2006 · December 2006; December 2006 · January 2007; January 2007 · February 2007; February 2007 · March 2007; ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:39, 4 April 2007

edit count | edit summary usage

User:Ali-oops/Bar Start a new talk topic.

[[Image:

|45px]]

Thank you to everyone who was so supportive in my recent successful RFA. I really appreciate it. I promise to do my utmost best to be a productive and fair administrator and to protect the wiki as best I can. Now - off to the janitor's closet for my mop and bucket :) - Alison^☺

Article Deletion

Alison, I am writing to you about the deletion of an article titled: Healing Cancer: The Top 12 Non-Toxic Cancer Treatments To Help You Beat Cancer (2005)

The article was not meant to be an advertisement, as I do not consider Wikipedia as an advertising medium, but rather as an encyclopedia of knowledge. My understanding was that the entry met Notability requirements because it listed two reviews of the book that have been published in appropriate UK Journals. Further, I had written the entry as a basic description of the books contents, as this seems the most appropriate article entry for a book. I have no problem in rewritting the entry so that it meets Wikipedia guidelines - though at this stage, I am unsure as to what would need to be altered for it to acheive this.

I should also like to explain that a more expereinced Wikipedia contributor had first marked up the article with concerns - which I was working to alleviate - but that then another user (self described to me) marked it for speedy delete. Thanks.
Wiki5000 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-visited the above deleted article and read it all through in detail again. And yes, it's a blatant advert and little else. From your edit history, I can see that you've contributed absolutely nothing other than the blatant advertising of your own two books, the other of which is featured on WP:AFD. Seriously, it fails on a number of points; it's non-notable, your edits fail WP:COI and it's an unmistakable, blatant advert. If you'd like to get another opinion, feel free to refer this to another administrator. Here's the relevant link. I note also that you've berated the two other editors who questioned your article. - Alison^☺ 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison. The other entry was for a film, not a book (and which I agree, I cannot provide sources to show that it is notable - at present). However, I am not understanding why the book article is non-notable. I read through the relevant document, and the understanding I got from that was that if a book is discussed in at least one journal, then it can be counted as notable.

I am genuininly not understanding how such an article could be written so that it is not an advert, and as such, I would like to clarify that it is your view that it is blatant advert, not mine. I tried looking through Wikipedia to find books, but I couldnt find a way to bring them up. The only one I found was Harry Potter. As I mentioned to you, I am not trying to enter this book in as an advert, but rather I think it deserves being entered into Wikipedia as part of a body of knowledge.

For your information, I did not berate two editors - rather I berated one. The first editor marked the entry with concerns, and I did not have a particular problem with how they were expressed. The second editor seemed to feel the need to mark the article for speedy deletion, which I did not appreciate.

I do not think it fails COI, as really, it does not make rational or logical sense to judge an article by who contributes it, but rather on the subject matter of the article itself. The issue obviously, is how an article is worded, and whether it is written from a neutral point of view. I have written you that I have no problem in updating it until it is acceptable. Further, unless you are saying that Wikipedia is some kind of club, of which you have to be an accepted member, then your statement here, is I consider, unacceptable: 'I can see that you've contributed absolutely nothing other than the blatant advertising of your own two books'. And secondly with regard to this statement, you have no information on which to reasonably jump to such an assumption or assert such a claim, especially in such a tone.

Alison, really like I said in the other post. It's no big deal for me, but I have to say that I consider your attitude arrogant and improper (and not the tone suggested by the document you referenced me) - and I am sure if you read it again - you will se what I mean. Further, I would like to say, that I have seen all this before with Dmoz of which I was an editor for a couple of years. Funny thing now - is when I was there the other day - they are looking for an editor for every category I looked at.

I have better things to do with my time than engage in conversations like this. I asked you civil questions, to which you provided no reply. I have used Wikipedia extensivily over the last few years, but I have to say that my experience of the last 24/36 hours has made me think lesser of it in terms of its future. I am sorry to say.

Wiki5000 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I came across as uncivil; that was not my intent. However, my review of the deletion still stands. It's non-notable, there's a conflict of interests, you've done little else here other than advertise your book/movie/book (see WP:SPA), and the whole article reads as a blatant advert as does the other one currently with WP:AFD. At this point if you wish to dispute it further, you might want to bring the issue up with another administrator. Thanks - Alison^☺ 04:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison: At this stage I am not asking you to review your deletion decision, rather at present I am needing to understand why the article is non-notable, and secondly, how such an entry could be written in a non-advertisment way. Until I understand more, there doesnt really seem any point in moving to another editor, because I am presuming they may have similar concerns to yourself - unless those concerns are met.

I am thinking as I write this message to you, that one of the things causing us difficulties, is that though I am asking you questions about, for instance, why you consider the article was non-notable, you keep providing me with just the same information - i.e. that it is non-notable.

This just isn't providing me with the rationale or help in understanding that I am needing to judge the issue myself in line with Wikipedia documents, so that I can pursue the matter or leave it and move on. For instance, you could write me things like, there were not enough references, or the references were not in appropriate journals, or some other reason.

I am sure you can appreciate that it is frustrating not to receive answers to questions, (when you have been the judge in this matter) and actually, it also feels like it is conflict creating on/by my side, with me keeping on asking the same question. It seems like I am being stubborn or insistant

This is what I understand the notability criteria to be:

'The book has been the subject [3] of multiple, non-trivial[4] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[5] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.'

I would be grateful therefore, if you could explain me why you consider the subject of the article non-notable. And also, some indication or an example of how such an article might be written in a non-advertising way would also be appreciated.
Wiki5000 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - have a read of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books). They're basically the statement of where this issue is at. It is my contention and that of the original editor who marked your book article for speedy delete that your article did not meet these criteria. See the 'criteria' section on that page. It doesn't end there, though. There is a conflict of interests here in that you are using Wikipedia to promote this book (and DVD) of yours. See WP:COI. Not only that, you've done little other than these two articles, as well as comment on editors' userpages on the two articles. This smacks of WP:SPA.

At this point, if you want further address, you can bring the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review, where speedy deletions get reviewed for accuracy, etc. Failing that, you could contact another administrator or bring the issue up on WP:AN/I for review by another admin - Alison^☺ 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rklawton

Thanks, it's funny how these anon IP's get testy when you give them a short block. Rklawton 03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it just! I'm following up their day's edits and reverting some. Meh - vandals - Alison^☺ 03:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red hair article

Having an issue with the Red hair article. A violation of 3RR (but not until they were halfway through was I able to "warn" them of the rule). And a suspected sock puppet. I've invited them both to chat first, with no response. I'm not sure I want to bring this up at ANI, so I thought maybe I'd ask your opinion on this first. Thanks! ZueJay (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like everything is fine and you've done all you can. If they persist, then warn them again for 3rr. You've done your utmost, including linking the pics into the talk page. I notice another editor concurs and has jumped in to defend the article. And yes, my sock-o-meter seems to have pinged into the red :) On my watchlist now ... - Alison^☺ 05:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the red-haired girl pics are unlicensed so I tagged them and alerted the uploader - Alison^☺ 05:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I actually left the Wiki last night so I wouldn't violate 3rr. ZueJay (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec) Very wise :) As it happens, I ended up warning one of the editors for 3RR, they persisted and ended up being blocked by another admin - Alison^☺ 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know the situation, but if you were reverting vandalism, you won't get blocked for 3RR. Acalamari 23:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightvessels in Ireland merge

As a member of the Irish Maritime Project and someone who, IMHO, has a sensible viewpoint on Irish topics, you might like to weight in on the suggestion to merge Lightvessels in Ireland into Lighthouses in Ireland. I posted a rather longwinded rebuttal to Frelke comments to my opposition of his merge tag on the talk page. Hope you agree that one article, as it stands with the current name, though with some expansion, as the best solution. Cheers ww2censor 05:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rfcn comment

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. — coel acan — 05:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!!! - Alison^☺ 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, I wonder if your face looked anything like mine when you found that out... I vividly remember refusing to block User:Dingleberryman (or something like that) and then being told what it means... – Riana ^ऋ 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh gawdz. I am just so embarrassed!! - Alison^☺ 05:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not your fault, of course. =) If I thought it was a self-described bitch who listened to punk music, I'd not have thought much of it. Now I wonder if it's time for me to canvass every allow !voter who doesn't seem to have noticed my late entry. — coel acan — 05:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay for free knowledge! – Riana ^ऋ 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See what i'd'min!

Now that Ali's an Admin!
Is she growing kind of dim?
Don't see her 'round the usual corners,
Perhaps she's under Jimbo's orders,
And even FLIP did disappear,
Has gone out east as a volunteer!
I heard that the queen has joined the Wiki,
Please don't block her as she gets quite sticky,
So stick with the typos, and heep your nose clean,
Admin is no fun, see what I mean?

W.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jumbos nemesis (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

LOL!! :) - Alison^☺ 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is it good to create user pages for 'indef' tags? Despite a desire to do so for certain vandals, I have usually not done it unless they already created a user page. I know this is trivial but I happen to be wondering now. The Behnam 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally do because the {{indefblock}} tag also puts them into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. It also serves to inform others and as they're indefblocked by definition, they're hardly likely to be editing the page in future. Also, as they're almost always vandalism-only accounts, they're usually empty (as you say), thus adding the template isn't usually blanking anything. - Alison^☺ 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that I don't know if it is discouraged to actually create a page just to indef tag it, since it takes up more space. However, I have noticed that WP seems to have a lot of space available... The Behnam 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that creating a page for a single tag isn't going to take up a whole lot of space. Maybe ask over on WP:AN as this is just conjecture on my part here - Alison^☺ 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Also, do you know how I can link directly to a category without making it apply for the current page? I tried this here [1], but this messed things up, so I settled for the 'out-link' form [2]. The Behnam 19:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Someone else fixed it and I now see how to do it. The Behnam 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see an absolute link there - like this; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Patchouli number of sockpuppets]. I tend to do that by putting a colon in front of it like this [[:Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Patchouli|number of sockpuppets]] .. which looks like this --> number of sockpuppets. This what you're after? - Alison^☺ 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw what Physic-whatever did right after I posted here. Thanks though. The Behnam 06:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

indefblocked users may certainly be brough up for arbitration. they participate via their talkpage. see this link. thanks for looking out though. :-) /Blaxthos

~~Yes, but that particular user's talk page is fully protected~~ Ah - it's been removed! Thanks for the followup - Alison^☺ 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Fries.

Thanks for blocking that user. They appear to be vandalizing Haylie Duff using an IP as well, so I'm looking out for that. That account was vandalism-only anyway. Acalamari 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting :) - Alison^☺ 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you're online, the sockpuppet appeared with this edit to Haylie Duff. Acalamari 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That joker vandalized my user page. Acalamari 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef for sockiness / vandalism only - Alison^☺ 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:CCCJGD

Alison, that wasn't fair! I was just doing him, but I'm not as fast as you yet, so you just beat me to it!--Anthony.bradbury 23:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm so sorry! Shall I unblock him so you can go get him? :) Practice, practice- Alison^☺ 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. :) Acalamari 23:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could always do that myself, but it just might send out the wrong message!!--Anthony.bradbury 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Slavery

Wow, that was fast! You must have set some kind of record on that one. :) (Judging by the previous comment, you seem to have a track-record of speediness.) Thanks! Cgingold 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!! I try ... :) - Alison^☺ 00:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English towns

Alison, could you advise me on that request from User:Eastmain that you commented on onnmy talk page? My inclination is to refuse.--Anthony.bradbury 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both of them are one-liners - maybe about 10 words in total. There are no categories (yet. Comment notwithstanding) and they're both just sitting there in splendid isolation. One of them (Berry Hill) has been deleted three times now. The other is a council estate. My opinion is that both should stay deleted under WP:CSD#A1. If the editor is still not convinced, they could maybe bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review or ask another admin - pref. neither of us - Alison^☺ 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They both seemed to me, and on re-reading still seem to me, to be wholly non-notable. I was just a little disconcerted by his statement that a similar article had in fact been resurrected. I shall tell him "no", but offer deletion review if he wants.--Anthony.bradbury 00:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that they've asked for them to be restored to their userspace where, I presume, they could work on them to bring them up to scratch. Good compromise, maybe? - Alison^☺ 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think not. they are both so short that re-writing from scratch in userspace will take about 15 seconds, and I have suggested that this is what he should do.--Anthony.bradbury 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Gras page

could you check this page and tell me what else I can change so that the tag "fan site" can be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.174.100.66 (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! It is apprectiated much! Chickyfuzz14^{(user talk)} 03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

SatyrBot 04:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP

I don't mean to harass you but I noticed you're active at RPP at the moment and the unprotection secion is a little neglected. Could you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ziaur_Rahman_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 ? I think someone got a bit overzealous. Thanks. —dgies^t_c 06:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Unprotected per WP:NOPRO - Alison^☺ 06:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alison

Do you think User:Alison's homepage is Wikipedia, she is always online when I check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.166.184 (talk • contribs)

You need to quit checking then. That behaviour is kinda weird and stalkery - Alison^☺ 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Think

The Irish for what do you think is cad a ceapann tú. You're welcome.--Play Brian Moore 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. It's "cad a cheapann tú" ... but thanks for trying. Ná abair é! :) - Alison^☺ 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the use of the word "tusa" in that context translates as "what do you think yourself?". You rarely see "tú féin" in that context. Slán arís! - Alison^☺ 14:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'h' in the present tense. Doesn't take as gaelgoir to know that. Also, if you think "tusa" is more correct than "tú", I would advise you to kindly inform the Irish Department of Education because mé-féin along with thousands of others were thought tú. Somehow, I think I might trust them over you. No offence. Tá siad níos-cliste. Also, minor thing but Tíocfaidh Ár Lá means our day will come. Go raibh maith agat.--Play Brian Moore 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to know just what Tiocfaidh ár lá means can check WP. Now quit trolling on my talk page - Alison^☺ 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk Yet?

Alison you drunk yet?.--User:Fenian Swine|Play Brian Moore]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.166.184 (talk • contribs)

Not at 7am I'm not. You done trolling now? - Alison^☺ 14:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Not yet Alison; So what about the IRA? You a member?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.166.184 (talk • contribs)
  - Nope. Never was, never will be a member of a terrorist organisation. I don't have "Tiocfaidh ár lá" on my userpage. And you? - Alison^☺ 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like talking to yourself. : ).--Play Brian Moore 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet captain (Star Trek)

Hmm.. I've already fully protected the page. Looking at the article history and talk page, it doesn't appear that the editors discuss with each other before making actions nor are going to establish consensus anytime soon. A request for comment has already been opened. What is your opinion on the issue? Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the full prot on the page. The two editors are filling out long comments in their edit summaries by way of justification so I'm hoping that will continue on the talk page as they've just run out of option :) I guess the RfC will have to run its course and they abide by that - Alison^☺ 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disgraceful

If you acuse me of trolling one more time, I will ask an administrator to step in. You are lying. It is disgraceful and it puts serious doubt into my mind about who is running the place here when an administrator can lie about something and not even be questioned. You have no proof at all and a simple IP address check would show it is not me.--Play Brian Moore 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with another admin, then. Post it to WP:AN/I if you really feel the need to. I can quite clearly discern between the two sets of edits on here but that's not what I was referring to. Second request - quit trolling on my talk page - Alison^☺ 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. You have no examples. In fact, if anything, you are the troll. Tóg a bog é.--Play Brian Moore 16:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third and last time - quit it already. Next one gets reverted - Alison^☺ 16:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail

Just sent.--Anthony.bradbury 18:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Replied! - Alison^☺ 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch declention/ Govert Mierevelt

I have no idea where this/he came from, or what his objectives are. He's accusing me of all sorts of things and makes little sense on the articles talkpage.As far as I can see he's pushing an article escentially about archaic Dutch declention as contemporary Dutch declention. As a result we now have a page which, if compared to English, now says that "Thou shallst not do(st) that" is contemporary everyday speech/writing. Rex 19:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I'm a little clearer now as to what's going on - Alison^☺ 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

300 (film)

I don't really think 300 (film) should have been semi-protected. It's not really the target of rampant vandalism from anonymous sources as it was when it was originally semi-protected (see halfway down the history page). Most of the reversions now come due to content disputes, which is being played among multiple users – anonymous or registered. -- tariqabjotu 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I take that back; it could worse, but it's pretty bad already. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User:Pogemahome

Ah, ní thuigim cad úsáideora sin tá séis, ach tabharfaidh "glac do focal", abair. :) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceart go leor, so! Maith agat! - Alison^☺ 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amish

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Amish article. For some reason it seems to be a vandal magnet. Wachholder 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your WP:AIV work

Your work against vandalism does not go unnoticed. I seem to be finding way too many today. MrMacMan^Talk 22:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

And this username, unlike Wikipedier, is undoubting acceptable with the username policy?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it is! :) - Alison^☺ 22:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameblock

Hi again, I just wanted to let you know of this username being blocked, and that I left the blocking administrator a message requesting to lift the account creation block, so that the IP of which the user originated from could still create a new account. I'm leaving you a message because I hope that I didn't go out line with that comment on the blocking admin.'s talk page.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - I'd say you did the right thing to question it. It looks like the ACB flag is set this shouldn't be the case. I'm going to add the {{usernameblocked}} template just to ensure the editor knows what's going on. Thanks again - Alison^☺ 23:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The ACB still hasn't been lifted on the log, and the user won't do so until it's lifted to "noautoblock", I think. I also asked the administrator a question. What's offensive, inappropriete, or inflammatory about "Cool cat". What does it infer? I'm just curious.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to modify the block as the blocking admin may have meant to indefblock with ACB on as a recalcitrant vandal/sock and just got the blocking comment wrong. It happens! Let's see what happens ... - Alison^☺ 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeys rule 99

Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for letting me know. —tregoweth (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008

Thanks so much for granting the semi-protection. Take care! ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 292: / Line 292: @@
 Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for letting me know. &mdash;[[User:Tregoweth|tregoweth]] (''[[User talk:Tregoweth|talk]]'') 00:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
+== Protection on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 ==
+Thanks so much for granting the semi-protection. Take care! ---- [[User:GIGGAS2|GIGGAS2]] | [[User_talk:GIGGAS2|Talk]] 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)