User talk:Alison: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:56, 1 June 2011

BLP question, out of curiosity

Hey Alison, I saw on your userpage that you support removing RFDs per consent of the subject (which, contrary to the mainstream consensus here, I think is a reasonable concept in some cases). Out of curiosity, would you still support it if, say, a Senator McScandal (or his staffers) saw their page, didn't like it, and demanded deletion? Kansan (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same question, different curious person. Similarly, are you in favour of LPs blanking their Bs? Widefox (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MMBabies Revdel Request

This one needs to go because of revealing of personal details on a user's page (though the talk page user is from VA, not Texas). Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nate was meaning this post. That range should be locked down as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's what I mean...really getting annoyed with his double posts which defeat easy rollback. Nate • (chatter) 04:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That edit and SineBot's are both gone. Courcelles 04:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further note, it's not technically possible to remove the contents of the latest edit using the revision delete extension. So if you notice that something clearly meets either the RevDel or Oversight criteria, please revert ASAP. It'll have to be reverted eventually, and unless you do so it sits in full view for however long it takes for someone to notice. Courcelles 04:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might interest you.

The RFC regarding restricting article creation to autoconfirmed users is now open. Thought you might be interested in it. Best. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of this?

Hi Alison

Thought you might have some insights as to this strange contributions history. The last, the sole (as of this writing) comment in an AfD that was notified only to an IP that hasn't edited since 2005.

Also, on another AfD I have seen a number of long-inactive accounts wake up to opine.

Are people jacking these accounts, or making a few edits and keeping them around for years, or are they just coincidences?

Thoughts?

Thanks, ^Bongo_matic 02:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.[reply]

HI there. Firstly, I don't see anything necessarily wrong with what Dadge (talk · contribs) is doing. It's possible that they're a regular reader who woke up their account to participate in an AfD that means something to them. I'm willing to give them the benefit of any doubt. However, on the other AfD, I'm calling shenanigans, and it's pretty clear that some votestacking is going on. A quick check of the obvious ones shows that MistressOftheAbyss (talk · contribs) is a Confirmed sock of Smikefoley (talk · contribs). The others appear to be Unrelated, though there may be some off-wiki campaigning going on - I dunno - Alison ^❤ 04:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently a facebook campaign (run by the subject of the article) to get people to oppose the deletion of the article. Furthermore its appeared on at least one convention go-er gathering point with a direct link to the AFD [1]. The article was created by the owner of the con just look at the uploaded and declaration and who started the article «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alison. I don't see any investigation page for Smikefoley, so could you please strike the opinion and reference the appropriate link? Many thanks. ^Bongo_matic 05:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm going to let someone else do that, as I'm not going to get involved (being checkuser). But that account above is a confirmed sock - Alison ^❤ 05:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little fuzzy on procedure. As checkuser, can you block the puppet, leave a template, and warn (or block) the master, or is that something that CUs don't do? ^Bongo_matic 05:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that sock is marked confirmed now. Someone else can decide as to whether a block/strikethru etc may be needed. I don't personally want to block as well as check - Alison ^❤ 06:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

email

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tipper Gore

I'll take that as a yes! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppy of SuperblySpiffingPerson

This new person just showed up and made a strange edit and Superbly seems to like starting new accounts and then running through a bunch of the same types of edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zerdabi

So before they get too far along, I thought I might point them out.

-- Avanu (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, they only made 1 edit and stopped. Oh well. -- Avanu (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just rang your bell...

→ WP:ANI#Help ←

Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 23:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ED/Oh Internet

Well, you fooled me. Bielle (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is ED still going to exist? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally as an anthropologist I was disgusted by 99% of content on there... but its was such a good resource for internet folklore and culture! The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Email

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get it, sorry :/ - Alison ^❤ 23:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

The days of "more is better" are well over.... Music to my ears. Could not agree more. But most of Wikipedia seems to be unaware of that, as the new unending debate on Pending Changes shows. I would like to encourage you to promote The days of "more is better" are well over everywhere, for I do see Wikipedia becoming a CraigsList over time, and much better protection measures are needed. I think those in favor of more protection should form a group of some type, but I am not sure how. I have over 1,000 pages on my watch list and just tired of IP debates. So I would like to encourage everyone to promote more protection. History2007 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Hi. I hope you got my email explaining what happened. I never sent that spam stuff. My account was hijacked. I also informed, among other contacts, Jimmy Wales and Elizabeth (Eliz81). I deleted all my contacts from the hotmail account which I don't use anymore anyway, as I explained, so I don't think there will be a recurrence, but you know more about computers than I do. Do you think it's connected to my Wikipedia username? I wasn't going to change it for the sake of the likes of User:IZAK, but if you think or recommend I should then let me know on my userpage, and let me know how to go about it. Thanks. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: another spamming happened this morning before I even woke up. So I changed my password, but didn't send out warnings as I had already told any affected contacts the first time to spam any messages from that Hotmail account which I hardly ever use. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert! Honestly, don't worry about it :) It's just a drop in the ocean in the levels of spam I get, and was clearly not your fault. In the subsequent message, I see that you've even contacted HotMail about it! I don't think it's connected with your WP username, but it's possible your computer may have a virus/trojan that may have it sending out emails inadvertently. Prolly a good idea to scan your computer for undesirables :) - Alison ^❤ 20:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YGM 2

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - replied - Alison ^❤ 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello Alison. I noticed your rev/del on the Downton Abbey article and the note on your user page that you are an admin who will consider rev/del requests. When you have time would your please look at these edits Special:Contributions/LineProducer85. I reverted these back in January and have wondered ever since whether they should remain in the edit history. I have seen such conflicting discussion of rev/del on various noticeboards that I haven't known whether these meet the criteria or not. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Y'know, five of those edits were serious BLP violations and were completely unsourced. Given that they're potentially damaging to a number of parties, they're borderline suppressible, IMO. What I've done, though, is revdel'd them, so at least the allegations aren't publicly accessible. Thanks for letting me know

- Alison ^❤ 23:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. As a followup I received a bizarre email from that editor a few days after my reversal of their edits. I won't bore you with the rambling nature of it but it was pretty weird. Thanks goodness they didn't continue trying to add that stuff. I appreciate your looking into this. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit of mine you oversighted.

I'm going to have to ask you to confirm on WP:ANI that the edit of mine that you oversighted included no personally identifying information about anyone. Thanks, and sorry to bother. Hipocrite (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, Allison, but that's bullcrap. There are literally millions of papers on rural development. How does my edit in any way ID him? Hipocrite (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there, and I'm done. Going down the path you're pushing is only going to result in further release of information. Indeed, Fred Bauder actually went further and suppressed another data item that I originally thought was borderline. I also stand over his actions here and I'm not going to get dragged into whatever mudfight you and LedRush are embroiled in - Alison ^❤ 01:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What next step would you like me to take? Given that my old friends are starting up the witchunt and eventually some "uninvolved" admin will pull the indef trigger on me, should I file with AUSC, or would you please write that there was no violation of WP:OUTING in my edit? Hipocrite (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should file with AUSC if you feel the need to. Personally, I think your detractors should back off. At the very least, a healthy dose of AGF is required. It took me all of 20 seconds to ID who the editor was, based on the information you provided. If you're indefblocked on the strength of that alone, I will not be impressed, especially given that you basically assented to have it suppressed once the editor complained. I still believe it falls under the 'outing' policy, but I do not believe it to have been willfully malicious. Just my opinion, mind. Having said that, feel free to contact AUSC and I certainly invite any other oversighter to vet any suppressions I have carried out, anywhere - Alison ^❤ 01:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Allison, your above statement is fine. Hipocrite (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: <3

<4. :D

Badmachine (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

53 oversighted edits at AN

I noticed that you hid content for a block of 53 revisions at WP:AN, including some of mine. May I ask why? Your explanation was that "this contains the RL name of an uninvolved person who was targeted by the original web posting". I was not aware that any of my edits revealed any personal information, and I don't know what "original web posting" you speak of. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lothar, I'm not Alison, but let me try to explain (as one of her legion of devoted talk page watchers, as well as an oversighter) .. When oversighters do an oversight for things like personal information we have to remove every revision of the target page that has the oversightable information on it. She wasn't saying that you, specifically posted the RL name, just that someone else did, and you happened to post before the oversight was done. Because the oversightable information was on the revision that you edited, it had to be oversighted. Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A compromised account?

Hi Alison, something strange happened today that I'd like to take a look please. as you could see my message was removed here, but user:BorisG says he was not the one who did it. May I please ask you to see what's going on here? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resolved. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

81.164.209.246

The reason I listed the other users is simply because the IP targeted them. He wouldn't likely know about those users unless he himself was those users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O_o - so if the IP targeted me, that would make it me, too, yes? - Alison ^❤ 12:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the IP was placing sockpuppet tags for various sockmasters that he shouldn't have known about unless he was those sockmasters himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes absolutely no logical sense. I've seen guys like JtV tag pages just to confuse people like you. Seriously. I know where all four of those editors are located and I can tell you that it's not Brussels. And to compound matters, one of those tags mentions their RL name. Can you see how that could possibly be problematic? Think it through - Alison ^❤ 21:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think they're not connected, that's fine. I have no way to know where the named users are located. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said - think it through. Anyone can tag anyone else's account as anything - without even having any clue who the other editor is. If you have no way of knowing, best off not tagging like you did - especially if there are RL names involved, as there are here. You attribute others' edits to that RL person, and that's just not right - Alison ^❤ 02:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the names listed were already indef'd as sockmasters. As for Editor XXV vs. this "Johnny the Vandal", I'll take your word that they're not the same guy... although, as my most trusted admin once told me, in essence it is all the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief!! Well, if they're all already indeffed as sockmasters, they must all be the one guy, eh? Wikipedia really only has one sockmaster ... :rolleyes: - Alison ^❤ 10:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the admin's point was that spending too much time trying to link different socks together is wasted energy, and it's easier to think of them as just one guy. I never heard of this "Johnny the Vandal" before, and he has only one visible edit, from 5 years ago. But if that's who he is, then that's who he is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JtV/The Italian Vandal/Mike Garcia/etc etc - he's been here maybe 5 or 6 years now. Nobody keeps a tally (re. to your 'timewasting' comment) but he's easily had thousands of socks & makes an appearance on average about once or twice a day, in various guises. He's clearly mocking you right now, with those edits, BTW - Alison ^❤ 10:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly much used to being mocked. :) The Italian Vandal - is that the guy that called himself "Italian with a two-way radio" or some such? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

← (edit conflict) But ultimately, even tagging them is a waste of time. I only tag his accounts when people are confused/misled, otherwise I'd spend my waking hours tagging various socks of various accounts. Best off just Keep Calm and Carry On, y'know? - Alison ^❤ 10:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether you want to keep it a secret or let everyone know about it. As far as anyone coming after me, the way I figure it is that every minute a troll spends trying to hassle me is a minute he's not spending damaging wikipedia otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason I tagged the one "Pollo" is that the other one was already tagged. One Chicken Taco being tagged, and one not, kind of disturbed my sense of order. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn ;> did I just get tarred as having run every sock the site has ever had? no wonder tehy want me chained-up forever. but wouldn't that mean that we'd have had no sock for fucking year? Damned, Barong 13:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC) ;)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!"

A eochairabairt maith ar a dtugtar ó Star Fox, a chroí. (please excuse my dreadful Gaelic :P) 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 00:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh! Go raibh maith agat! :) 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at ...

this thorny issue? Feel free to RevDel everything that needs to be, including my own post on the matter here and there. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thenub314 (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

Please don't tell me you're going to edit war with me over the policy of not commenting on archived discussions. Especially not when Bishonen is using one of his many alternate accounts to make a trolling comment that doesn't benefit the encyclopedia a single iota. Silverseren^C 23:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful little Alison

Reverted again ! [Bishzilla is upset. Considers going on wiki-wide rampage.] Trolling??? Que? bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think that any experienced contributor here is going to be aware of Bish's style, and leave it up to a closing Admin to give his/her contributions to a discussion appropriate weight. Being here should be fun, sometimes, and that idea seems to be becoming less and less important. Shame, and perhaps lightening up wouldn't be unhelpful. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue wasn't the comment's content, it was that the discussion has already been archived and you're not supposed to edit archived discussions. I have no problem with humor if it's employed in the right way, but it shouldn't be used in a manner that breaks policy. For Humor is not an IAR reason. Silverseren^C 00:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps I missed that, but I don't see it. But the bottom line, as I see it, is that Bish's comment did not substantively contribute to the debate at hand, and the closing Admin would probably have discounted it as irrelevant to the merits of the debate at hand. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the discussion was already archived when Bishzilla (Bishonen) made the comment in the AfD. The admin has already made a decision a long time ago and it was enacted. This has nothing to do with the comment's content, as I said, but with the fact that the AfD is already closed.

The main reason why AfDs are not supposed to be edited after they have been archived is for retention purposes and because a bunch of accounts can "vote" after the fact and change what would be the appeared consensus and then start a DRV saying that the admin closed it wrong, when those votes didn't exist when the admin closed it. It is because of this that it is general policy that you are not allowed to edit archived discussions and are always reverted when you do. Silverseren^C 00:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the comment out of the archival box, not in the least because it was out-of-the-box thinking, besides missing the bus by a couple of days. Untimely humor... Tijfo098 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Barong 01:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're making friends. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Ally? or 'Zilla? Ya, ya. You know what this: 19 years, 8 months and 5 days means? See also: sulutil:Barong; yesterday there were two unattached accounts, but I asked a friend to usurp one (it's now teh most recently created account;). I just wrote another friend about the remaining one, so ms:Pengguna:Barong may be in hand by the time you read this. Or you're referring to the zoo-known-as-ANI... where half the posers should be blocked. The supports are unsurprising and from people with a lot of clue. You know how many times this has been tried? I'm not even bothering canvassing.

@Ally; just got junk mail about teh new iMac ;)

Barong 06:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC) <needs gnu sig ;>[reply]

Email

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hope you received my Email. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin vicipaedia

Dear Alison, I'm Xaverius, magistratus in the Latin wiki. It seems that our most vandalic, stubborn and rude of our contributors, Pantrocrator does not hold you in high steem, according to his most recent edit, which I shall not translate. Luckily for us he has not caused any trouble recently over la:wiki. I do not know what he has done here, but over there we simply decided not to unnecessaryly reply to his comments to avoid lenghty and pointless dicussion and revert all those edits which deserved so. I do not know if he acts with the same name over here or if he acts just as an IP, but I thought you'd like to know that he's a cross-wiki vandal. Cheers, --Xaverius 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL - thanks for what has to be the weirdest insult yet :) And yeah, I know what "illa sanguinem defaecat diebus" means, even if Google translate doesn't. Ew!! :p I've no idea who that person is, BTW - Alison ^❤ 21:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He said in bad Latin that he couldn't tell you here because he had been "bannatus" (which is so wrong, and so completely invented, that it makes my eyes cry), so it may be some recurrent vandalic IP/sockpuppet which you've blocked recently, I guess... Now i'm intrigued about who this person may be across wiki, in case he comes back to vandalise la:wiki...--Xaverius 09:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, he also threatens with the destruction of en:wiki under IP 71.107.148.49--Xaverius 09:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Okay - 71.107.148.49 is Grawp, aka JarlaxleArtemis. Dunno if they're one and the same or not. He's been trying to destroy en.wiki since about 2006 or so .... :D - Alison ^❤ 09:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More mail!

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 22:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look

Hi Alison, here's a text of email I got today from MediaWikiMail (I only removed new password):

"Someone from the IP address 83.252.62.192 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Mbz1" is "....". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org"

Alison, it is not an error and not a coincidence. Please see IP contributions:83.252.62.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I forwarded you the email I got. This email was sent to the same account that was hacked 2 times for the last 5 month. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah777 blocked, and at ANI

I don't know if you know, but Sarah is indef blocked and currently at ANI (she can't contribute there though). As you've interacted with her in the past, are you interested in commenting? I'm asking because there has been a small group of very negative people encouraging very punitive (imo) decisions to be made. I think more input is needed, and it's also dragging on (perhaps because of this lack of balance).

She accepts John as a mentor, and imo just needs a last warning to use better language re "the British" (and to refrain from giving any opinion at all really - this is WP after all) - or it's got to be a topic ban for her, or worse. That's my own proposal anyway - which seems logical and fair. She been out of trouble for years now, and typically productive too - so jumping to those extreme measures at this point just isn't right imo. The atmosphere at the ANI (and on her talk) is simply too punishing at times, but I thought ANI is supposed to be about finding workable solutions. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Plus

Life is certainly interesting over there at the moment. Just wondering if you've come to a determination with the ticket yet? Hopefully I'm not going to be wikistalked here :-) Shot info (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! Oh, that. Yes - there were serious issues relating to that article and one editor in particular. Those issues were resolved last year, thank goodness, and things have been quieter since. The article could probably use a fresh perspective, though, and be scrubbed for neutrality by an outside editor - Alison ^❤ 05:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk is back in ownership mode at Juice Plus, in spite of the requests made prior to his 6-month ban that he stop editing the article altogether. The article is a travesty, as many have remarked over the years, and a blot on Wikipedia's reputation. I would suggest an admin investigation into the neutrality of the article, leading in all probability to a permanent ban on his activities there, but I have removed the article from my watchlist instead. --TraceyR (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meow Wars

hi alison: i was disappointed to see this, and noticed that you are included here. if you would, please place the article here, and i will try to source it and recreate if i can. Badmachine (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that the Meow Wars article has been deleted. It's a vital piece of internet history and of usenet in particular. This was going on long before many internet denizens were even born! I'll admit to having been there, and being a 'meower' and Flonker (seriously - who even remembers that term?) at various times. Seriously - I'm rescuing this one. The big issue, of course, is that on-line news sources and the Web itself didn't exist, so it went undocumented. Consider it restored to your userspace. I'll help work on it too - Alison ^❤ 04:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for userfying it. hopefully we can get this going, but im having trouble with sourcing, so any halp is appreciated. guess its time to go to the library and find a (paper) source or two. Badmachine (talk)

Okies. An RL friend of mine wrote Zen and the Art of the Internet: A Beginner's Guide, back in the day, so I'll hit him up for resources, too. It's really hard to find on-line sources but I'll see what I can do. Dump stuff onto the talk page whenever you find things - Alison ^❤ 05:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

will do. ima try the library tomorrow, cuz nothing i found online is usable. Badmachine (talk)

important question

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 02:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ding! (twice a few days ago)

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, Poetlister

Discussion here: [2] Mindbunny (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 226: / Line 226: @@
 Life is certainly interesting over there at the moment.  Just wondering if you've come to a determination with the ticket yet?  Hopefully I'm not going to be wikistalked here :-)  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 : Ugh! Oh, that. Yes - there were serious issues relating to that article and one editor in particular. Those issues were resolved last year, thank goodness, and things have been quieter since. The article could probably use a fresh perspective, though, and be scrubbed for neutrality by an outside editor - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 05:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
+[[User talk:Rhode Island Red|talk]] is back in ownership mode at [[Juice Plus]], in spite of the requests made prior to his 6-month ban that he stop editing the article altogether. The article is a travesty, as many have remarked over the years, and a blot on Wikipedia's reputation.  I would suggest an admin investigation into the neutrality of the article, leading in all probability to a permanent ban on his activities there, but I have removed the article from my watchlist instead. --[[User:TraceyR|TraceyR]] ([[User talk:TraceyR|talk]]) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 == Meow Wars ==

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