User talk:Alison

User:Alison/Bar Start a new talk topic.

My user and talk pages attract a lot of vandals - it kinda goes with the job. If you have reverted vandalism here, please understand that while I really appreciate you doing this, I'll probably not be able to reply to you for a whole bunch of reasons. But I do appreciate it!

Archives
The RMS 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 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 · ...

My best wishes

I'm sorry to hear that you've been ill. Get well soon! Wishing you all the best, DrKiernan 11:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Allie, thanks a million, the black has almost gone, the tape is good, although everyone is different, so I wouldn't recommend. I was grand until two weeks ago. I'm getting the clarity to get PT, so some years of waste might be ameliorated. Thanks for the help! 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep yer chin up, hope you get well soon and it's nowt serious. ^Khukri 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

5000 edits

Do you remember me? I just made my 5000th edit today. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 02:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I do! Congratulations! Well done :-) - Alison ☺ 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

3rr

Hello, a new user User:Illegal editor has broken the 3rr rule on the Collectivist anarchism article and the Benjamin Tucker article. He also shows many similarities and tendencies with other blocked sockpuppets of banned user Billy Ego. Can you check him out please? Full Shunyata 02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Deco Da Man again

Hey Alison, in hopes you're feeling better now -- I see you did poke your head up yesterday, anyway. If you are feeling better...

...well, this case is unresolved again. The admin who blocked Deco Da Man (talk · contribs) the first time Ryulong (talk · contribs) has blocked him a second time, this time on the basis (of maybe 30 edits) that Deco Da Man hasn't made any edits outside his user space & is supposedly using Wikipedia as a social networking site. I think it's rather that Ryulong has taken a person dislike to this kid, or something -- there's no other explanation I can summon up for a second incidence of the harshest sanction being made on the basis of few edits, no warnings, & an apparent forgetting of standard WP behaviors like WP:Assume good faith & WP:BITE. I've also asked MaxSem (talk · contribs) to take a look -- he's the admin who unblocked him the first time.

I think this is a matter not just of needing to make sure Deco Da Man keeps his nose clean, but also perhaps of reining in an admin who's throwing the book a little bit too hard. If you can take a look, thanks. If not... I understand you're still unwell. --Yksin 17:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alison. Please see Deco Da Man's talk page; would my proposal work for you, assuming that he accepts it, and Ryulong as well? (Deco Da Man's in Australia, so time zone issues might mean some time before he will respond). Thanks. --Yksin 22:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's just fine, IMO. Deco needs to agree to all this, though and right now, he's in Last Chanceville. If you could mentor him, that would be really great. Your patience knows no bounds :) - Alison ☺ 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Damned powerful soup

Whoop! Hugs. welcome back. Lsi john 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's so nice to see you back. :) Just saw your major archiving. Acalamari 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Must've been the soup (and I don't eat meat!) Back again ... - Alison ☺ 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I supposed you might run a-fowl of a vegetarian diet for eating chicken soup. :) Lsi john 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add to the other well-wishers. . .Glad you're back and feeling better. R. Baley 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hi Alison, welcome back! I hope you're feeling better. While you're here, you might want to leave a kind word with Sharon, who won't be active for now due to family concerns (I'd rather you hear it from her than from me). Thanks. --Kyoko 19:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! I'll email her straight away ... thanks, Kyoko - Alison ☺ 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! Hope you are feeling better! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow its good to see you back,I bet you are feeling a lot better now:).Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 20:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise - glad to see you around and about! Take care! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) - Alison ☺ 23:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

71.107.145.200

71.107.145.200 keeps reverting his ip's talk page. oysterguitarist~Talk 23:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• *sigh* - I gave them every last chance. Reverted and protected to prevent further timewasting and abuse. Let's see what the LA Times have to say ... - Alison ☺ 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RFPP

Alison, would you please go to RFPP and say that my request there has been fulfilled? The administrator who semi-protected the page I listed there didn't put the "semi-protected confirmed" template in to show it had been semi-protected. Acalamari 23:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - congrats on making the top-editor's list, BTW :) - Alison ☺ 23:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I was working with the MartinBot for half an hour or so reverting vandalism on that page (I've never worked with a bot before!). I have no idea why an extinct volcano is notable enough to vandalize, but I guess that's the way it is. What do you mean by the "top-editor's list"? Acalamari 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; you meant Wikipedia: List of Wikipedians by number of edits. You're on that as well; higher than Ryan and I. Acalamari 23:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm even higher now, too. 17k or thereabouts ... scary! - Alison ☺ 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It's probably a class of schoolkids who got the volcano to study for homework! Top-editors by edit count! We all have editcountitis :) - Alison ☺ 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh; it seemed that way from the vandalism. As for your edits, just checked: in the 16,600s you are, while I looked at mine yesterday and I'm approaching 13,000 (how sad, I must be, when I look at our edits). Acalamari 23:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm in the top 600 :( Riana (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

heh

OTRS really aren't "agents" of the foundation in the traditional sense: they're volunteers. I'm sort of an exception, as I'm interning at the foundation simultaneously (though in reality that still makes me a volunteer), and people like Bastique obviously are actual "agents" of the foundation on OTRS, but yeah, generally OTRS are volunteers. Appreciate the message though, and if you don't mind please keep an eye on the page in case any admins accidently unprotect or revert over the protect? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep - will do. And yeah, I applied to the OTRS as a volunteer myself, so we'll see what happens! Hope your internship is going well - Alison ☺ 23:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

True, but the second block was a little harsh. He'll be closely watched for a while, and I'll be first in line to block him for good if he doesn't do something worthwhile. I must be having an generous day! Hope yours is going well. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 05:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ok :) No problem. We'll see how he gets on, so ... User:Yksin has staked her reputation on this guy (again!) and has agreed to mentor him - Alison ☺ 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, even though he made no agreement prior to unblocking, I'm sure Deco Da Man will need to pay attention to the concerns this whole biz brought up or he'll just be blocked again. As it is, he still hasn't replied further to any of it. I just hope he hasn't given up -- as you know, I agree with Stephen that the second block was pretty harsh. Thanks again for your help. Hope you're still feeling a whole lot better. --Yksin 16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-p

Thanks for the semi-protect, though I have a sneaky suspicion that the vandal will create an account. Oops..better not say too much or WP:BEAN... Cheers :) Dark Falls ^talk 08:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Heh - take my word for it. They'll just go hit your talk page instead :-) - Alison ☺ 09:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  (Scratch, scratch) A flaw in my logic... Good thing I'm not #1 on the hitlist... --Dark Falls ^talk 09:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just saw it, but they apparently moved on... Anetode is taking care of it though... --Dark Falls ^talk 09:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah. I semi'd Rambutan's userpage as he was getting hammered, too (my last endeavour over there was to block him. Oops!) - Alison ☺ 09:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fop

Based on events since your message, it seems like you're one of the more patient, tolerant admins! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly more patient that User:Ryulong - hurrah! ;) Pic's gone, too - Alison ☺ 09:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh! It's on Commons, too :-b Talk about blatant narcissism - Alison ☺ 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - User:Zscout370 deleted it from Commons for licensing issues. Yayy! - Alison ☺ 09:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"licensing issues" - or in plain English "get that vanity picture that serves no useful purpose off the servers". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

His vanity campaign is that bad he somehow ended up in the original version of the Matthew Bellamy article on the Lithuanian (??) Wikipedia, which I fixed as well naturally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Protecting userpage

Thanks for that - I can't imagine why they picked me!--Rambutan (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• No problem :) Your reputation as a vandal / POV fighter obviously precedes you. If you want to have that protection applied indefinitely, just let me know. Nobody should have to put up with that kind of nonsense - Alison ☺ 10:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there's no reason to have it taken off, on the other hand, other users have occasionally updated templates and so on. Maybe try semi-protection after a few days, or is that against WP:SEMI? Thanks,--Rambutan (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There is someone in the 69.0.0.0 IP range going around blanking user and user talk pages from (mainly) admins for a few days already. After block, they just switch their IP. Semi-protection seems the best solution (mine is semi-protected). Fram 10:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Fram, one just did my talkpage (the only unprotected bit of me!). I think someone said they're all AT&T IPs, but I couldn't swear to it. UPDATE: Here is the AT&T comment.--Rambutan (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that message, I also don't warn anymore but give straight blocks. It doesn't stop him, but it sure makes it a bit harder. Fram 10:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm blocking them on sight now for 24 hours. Their modus operandi is quite clear. Indeed, this page got hit twice in the last 30 minutes. - Alison ☺ 08:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan, I extended your userpage prot to indefinite, esp given that you're going on wikibreak soon - Alison ☺ 08:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Committed Identity question

Alison, quick question about the "Committed Identity" thing. If I should, because of the unstableness of my mental situation, happen to be committed, will I have to create a special committed identity? (Yes, this is supposed to bring a smile to a sick Dub...)

Seriously though, is the hash thing for committed identity recommended for everyone, or just admins and above? I've been on Wikipedia for a few months, and I'm starting to really get into it! I also have a digital ID certificate. Should that be mentioned, or because it uses real-life identity, probably not? Just wondering! Thanks - NDCompuGeek 10:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Baccara

About our discussion with User:Dreamer.se... Well, we're not against changes and improvements to any article. But do you consider more than 20 changes in one single day healthy to the article? At first, we didn't revert his changes because they were, indeed, good ideas. But when he added an "extended version" of the single "Sleepy-Time-Toy", we did revert it because that "extended version" does not even exist. When reverting, we did give him a good reason, but he just didn't care and kept on modifying the article with something that is not true. At the article's history page we told him: <<There's no such thing as an "extended version" of "Sleepy-Time-Toy". The difference between 7" and 12" was the sound quality.>> Don't you think this was a good reason to revert this modification? And next, he added a table with some chart positions (copied from the German Wikipedia) that is not verifiable. As we understand, Wikipedia's articles must contain facts, not gossip. Once again, we thank any positive contribution... But don't you think any major changes should be first discussed in the article's appropriate page? User:Oaobregon

Question

I noticed right beneath the Mark Kim comment you banned a user not for his incivility but because he saw nothing wrong with it. That is the exact problem with Mark Kim. Not only has been repeatedly uncivil over the last 2 years, nor does he see anything wrong with it, he thinks its the right thing to do over and over to "protect" articles or get his way in them. I intend to open an RfC on the user (but expect it will be dismissed by him like everything else) but I would appreciate some additional feedback here. From my point of view this looks like an issue which has just gone on too long and needs to be addressed.--Crossmr 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've actually created an RFC to get some formal input on this. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mark_Kim If you'd like to give any input.--Crossmr 04:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking this vandal. :) Abbott75 07:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (PS, I love your sig, *yoink!*.)

No problem. And *yoink!* away, by all means. My sig, BTW, was crafted by the very talented User:Nikosilver - Alison ☺ 08:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit wars?

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the :en rules for things, but you declined my request for semi-protection of Mike Bickle with the explanation that there was not enough recent activity to justify semi-protection. My impression is that I check in here every few days or weeks, and each time I do, an IP has deleted the reference to funding and the Joseph Company. Then I add it back. Other than IPs and me, no one much seems to be watching the page. Since I probably live in a different time zone than the IPs, we don't end up in a "heated" edit war, since it stays in my/their version for several hours or even days until one side or the other checks back. We trade a few edit commentaries with each other, but these do not always address the points the other side is making. Can you suggest another way of settling this dispute? Using talk pages of changing IPs to directly enter dialog does not seem like a feasible solution--my hope was that by semi-protecting the article, the IPs would be motivated to register and be more easily engaged in a discussion. Is there a minimum frequency of edits required to justify semi-protection?--Bhuck 07:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfair delting

Before you delete an article you should alway inform the last editor. Otherwise you are being rude and breaking wiki rules. I may have to have you blocked if you continue. Now please provide a good reason why you delted the PS-wiibox article as it said nothing but truth, meets the rules for notabilty. The only thing you had any right to do was mark it as a stub. If you continue like this I will make sure you are blocked from wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RabisaE (talk • contribs) 08:53, 21 June 2007.

Well, here's the reason; your article, Ps-wiibox, is not encyclopedic. It's wild speculation at best or patent nonsense at worst. See WP:CRYSTAL to understand why. Note that you were already speedy-warned for creating that article, it was deleted by another admin, yet you immediately went ahead and created it again. Whereupon I deleted it again as indeed, I may per WP:CSD#G1, "where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media on sight without further debate". If you wish to contest this, you can bring the matter through the deletion review process. You can also report me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so I can be blocked. Thanks - Alison ☺ 08:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How rouge! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchit, Hackney, or I'll have to block you ;) - Alison ☺ 08:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all you have done, and giving me a chance. I would like to say that the reasons I am interested in wikipedia are:

• The project itself is a good great idea and I would like to contribute.
• I would like to share my ideas, I am still not sure if this is the right place to do it but I am trying to do it without doing to wrong thing.
• MediaWiki has interested me for a while, I discovered it when I was looking around wikipedia. I am trying to make a broswer and WYSIWYG editor for it. Is this okay? or should I be doing this at the MediaWiki site? Please see User:Deco_Da_Man.

Thank you once again :D

Thank you,
Deco Da Man {talk} 08:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

EDIT: And thanks for restoring my user page.

• No problems at all, Deco. User:Yksin has gone above and beyond the call to help you on this one. Don't let her down! - Alison ☺ 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ali :)

Thanks very much for wishing me happy birthday! I had a great day - well, it could have been better, I spent all day studying for an exam! But let's concentrate on the positives, hmmm? :) My friends got me a great cake, a lot like this one, and since you've been so kind, I saved you a piece. Hope you enjoy it, and the rest of your day :) Riana (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Hey, glad to see you around again, blocking trolls and such :) Hope you're feeling a lot better! Love ya!

WTF??

Huh? Bad guys win? And how am I supposed to bid him farewell now? NikoSilver 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Niko. I know ... Unfortunately, I saw (and reverted) what happened yesterday & believe me, full-protection is warranted :( If you paste a message here, I'll move it to his talk page for you. - Alison ☺ 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (sickened by all of this)
  • Thanks Allie. Everything has already been told there. I liked the way I interacted with him, even when that was negative, and I'll miss him. I'm more pissed because of the way he left, and I am in the position to understand why I imagine he did the right thing. Some things are not worth the one-in-a-billion risk. I sympathize... NikoSilver 23:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Niko, to be honest, I still feel like leaving the project - at least temporarily - over the whole mess. I really feel sorry for the guy & the reasons why people need to remain private here have never been clearer now. And the response from Those Above has been less than stellar - Alison ☺ 23:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Gerritsen Beach, Brooklyn

Thank you kindly, Alison, for taking care of vandalism when I didn't know where to turn. Jim.henderson 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• No problem at all. It's not so much the vandalism, but that it contains serious allegations and personal attacks against certain members of the community there. That can lead into defamation and legal issues for WP. Thank you for being diligent and reporting it - Alison ☺ 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Much appreciated, that info looks really helpful for a newbie.

Couldn't reply on my own talk page- is this the right place to do it anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotic Gael (talk • contribs)

• Of course :) And welcome back, too. Happy editing & if you need any help, just let me know ... - Alison ☺ 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on...

He's perm-blocked. He's a non-issue. It's not like he's going to be able to do anything; RBI doesn't really apply.

Anyway...I'm bored. Now I'm bored again. I blame you for this, of course.

So there.

(God, I need a hobby...) HalfShadow 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bored, is it? Here's a few hints to keep ya busy :-) Let me know if you need more ;) - Alison ☺ 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

locking a page

I am unexperienced at wikipedia and I was wondering: is it possible to lock a page like a video game page on the count that a big gaming conference (E3) is coming up?Sasst82 19:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can request an administrator to either fully protect or semi-protect a page by requesting it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It's a good idea to read the protection policy first, and note that we don't generally pre-emptively protect pages - Alison ☺ 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also if one person is denied does that mean another, trying to lock the same article, person cannot try? Sasst82 20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it can be requested more than once, by more than one person. However, asking repeatedly won't get it protected unless the article has deteriorated in the meantime. Page protection is kinda really a last resort as we (or at least, I) don't like locking out any editors from participating, be they anonymous or registered editors. - Alison ☺ 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks. Sasst82 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi there Alison! I dropped your name here and here. I hope it's OK, and I figured as much, but if not, would you be so kind as to refer her to another Wikipedian who is a bit more active than I, but a bit less busy than you? I've been on holiday, so apologies for the brevity and the "business-like" post, hehe. My time's a bit limited at the moment, but I'm sure we'll catch up at some point! Cheers mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Gan fadhb ar bith, a bhuachaill! Just ask her to give me a shout here if there are any issues at all & I'll see what I can do. Hey - I'll be over yonder in less than two weeks now. Can't wait :) - Alison ☺ 20:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You semi-protected some articles a couple days ago

It's started up again. Here's the history. Arrow740 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - sigh - same editor, different IP address - Alison ☺ 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Arrow740 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Gerritsen Beach, Brooklyn

Shouldn't that get protected too? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Of course. Thanks :) I semi-protected it this morning but that seems to have been circumvented now by various sleeper socks. *sigh* - thanks for the reverts over there, BTW. I've left a detailed message on the talk page and have to say, I detest fully protecting a talk page like that ... but what else to do? - Alison ☺ 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently Semi on article isn't enough, eh? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I know!! Ridiculous, isn't it? And it's spreading to other articles .... - Alison ☺ 21:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank You for protecting the Talk:Gerritsen_Beach,_Brooklyn--Guyver8400 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• No problem. As stated above, I really don't like doing that & will try to remove the prot at first opportunity. Libellous comments and personal vendettas are not pleasant - Alison ☺ 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a little longer

I recently reported User:=CJK= because of his actions. If you look at my report, he's been doing this all day long, after 2 warnings by 2 different editors for the Hannibal Lecter article, and then again for the article reverts that you blocked him for. I think "a short time" might not be enough for this editor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there. We'll have to see where this goes. He's been given what I'd consider a standard 24-hour block for 3RR violation (not to mention the rampant incivility and refusal to work with others, warning blanking, etc, etc). He's got a clean block record to-date. There's the possibility that, having been blocked, he may reform but if it's business as usual when he returns, he'll just get quickly blocked for longer until the inevitable occurs - Alison ☺ 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok. It only said "editing for a short time", instead of giving a time. I didn't know if that meant like for an hour or what.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, right. The boilerplate block message doesn't really make that clear. If you click on his contributions, then 'block log', you'll see the duration ... - Alison ☺ 23:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I also wonder if his name can't technically be considered a violation, considering the difficultly with linking to his edit history, though I suppose he wouldn't be here anymore if that were the case... HalfShadow 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, the username meets the username policy, far as I can see. It's just a little funny and the "=" gets escaped in URLs. - Alison ☺ 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. I always forget about that, probably because it's just a small link at the top. I'll have to remember that for the future.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

When I put that 3RR report in, just before you blocked him, the area where you put the users name (that lists his history, contribs, etc) would show up "Example user" because of the "=" signs around his name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whereabouts is that? I've seen something similar in the past and I know there's a workaround for it. Maybe mention it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names but it's starting to look like you're out to get him (whether you are or not!) - Alison ☺ 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to get him blocked for his name. I don't think he did it intentionally knowing it would screw up the coding. I was merely trying to explain what HalfShadow was referring to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Apparently, doing this {{userlinks|1==CJK=}} fixes it: =CJK= (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HalfShadow 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Aha! Indeed, a lot of the templates that take args will do the 1= thing. Handy ... - Alison ☺ 23:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put in a request for comment about it because I wasn't aware there was a template to correct it. Should I remove that or let others discuss the issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• That should be fine. See what the community has to say ... - Alison ☺ 23:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok. I used that template that HalfShadow brought here, because if I used the one they want to use on the request for comments page, his name turns everything into one giant header, and he still shows up as "Example". lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your monobook

I copied off your monobook because I'm not too bright about this sight :) Hope it's okay with you, Alison. Cheers!--SusannaBanana (talk · contribs)23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. No problem, although a lot of it is useful to administrators only - Alison ☺ 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Also, the 'welcome' tab has been customised to use my own personal welcome templates, which you probably don't want to use. You should change that - Alison ☺ 00:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll remove that (I need to find it in the text). Is there anything else that is slef-made/personal to remove? Cheers!--Susanna Banana ^@ 00:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No. I think that's it. You should remove the reference to Steel's prot. stuff, as you won't need it - Alison ☺ 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I have no idea what you're talking about, I can't see these buttons :( Maybe that's a good thing, though. Thanks, Alison. Cheers! --Susanna Banana ^@ 01:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That's okay. I just fixed it up :) - Alison ☺ 01:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maxwell Joyner

I'm Thankful that you deleted Maxwell Joyner as rapidly as you did. It was so prompt that I didn't even have time to add it to WP:AfD! Thank you once again, and best wishes. NSR77 ^T_C 02:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh - glad to help :) - Alison ☺ 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Behmod and User:Pam55

Hi, Alison

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pam55 I have E-mail exchanges and chats with Behmod, other Iranina users and VoA. I have reasons to believe that Behmod and Pam55 are different students of the same department of the same University (I can provide additional info by E-mail if needed). In the worst case they are only guilty in mild meatpuppeting. I decided to unblock both of them and have given them warnings about meatpuppeting. Alex Bakharev 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. As the blocking admin, I don't mind which way you go on this one. I was just following through per request, and per checkuser. I've left some more detail on the checkuser page above.

Thanks for getting in touch - Alison ☺ 04:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Bonklet

Why did you block Bonklet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for only 24 hours? All the account's contributions are vandalism, including vandalism to sprotected pages, so the account should be blocked indefinitely unless there's been a policy change I'm not aware of. szyslak 05:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Where's the policy which points out where an editor should be indefblocked with one warning on their talk page? Call me naïve, by all means, but I'd rather not indefblock for silly vandalism like that without giving them some chance of reform. It has happened in the past. There's an editor on this page who's been indef'd twice now and is a reformed contributor. I generally only indef if they're blatant-blatant, or a returning troll or a banned editor like RMS or JB196 ... - Alison ☺ 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLOCK: "While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: (...) accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely". Indefblocking vandal-only accounts has been common practice for years. When such a user wants to make useful contributions, they can create another account. Additionally, Bonklet is clearly a "sleeper account", which was used for the express purpose of vandalizing semi-protected pages like Feces and Sex. szyslak 06:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Now define "primarily", because that's the sticking point. Indefblocking vandal-only accounts certainly has been practise, providing they're defined as "vandal-only". I'm not playing silly semantics here; if they're vandal-only, they get indef'd. Remember also from WP:BLOCK; "Administrators are never obliged to place a block and are free to investigate the situation themselves", "A rule of thumb is when in doubt, do not block" and note that blocking is only to prevent disruption and is not a punitive measure. - Alison ☺ 06:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (hope you like your userpage. I accepted your open invite and tidied a bit!)

Note also that indefblocking is a serious matter; you are permanently revoking an editor's privileges to edit Wikipedia. That's not something to do lightly. BTW, here's my block log. You'll find quite a few indefinites in there. It's not something I take pleasure in doing but, unfortunately, it is necessary betimes and I do it anyway - Alison ☺ 06:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, now this is a classic example of a vandalism-only account that will (and did! - thanks, Riana) immediately get indefinitely blocked - Alison ☺ 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Idiot... Riana (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Bonklet's vandalism was relatively minor for an account with no non-vandalous contributions. On retrospect, it's perfectly safe to just watch what the user does if s/he returns. I strongly agree that blocks are not a punitive measure, by the way. szyslak 12:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Phewwfff...

File:Watchlist-clear.JPG

• A bit of a relief, don't you think? --Dark Falls ^talk 11:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

Aww, thanks! It looks so much better! I've removed the blurb that says "this userpage is UGLY", being that it no longer is. (The redlinked cat was intentional, but it can definitely go!) szyslak 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Glad you like it :) - Alison ☺ 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Shoot me an email when you can

Bit of a situation here. SirFozzie 17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Emailed, Foz - Alison ☺ 21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Pam55

Hey Alison,

Sorry for the quick email. I am emailing you, regarding the case of Behmod/Pam55. Right now I am in the vacation in Toronto and I hardly have access to Internet and it is difficult for me to follow up the situation. I understand that I am suspected to be User:Behmod. I am strongly request to review this case again. Should not you be convinced, I am ready to provide you my Phone number and Student ID. Also, I would appreciate it if you could unblock me again or at least tell me: how I can unblocked myself?

I am doing this communication since Behmod contact me several times. I will be back home on Sunday evening. Should you need to emergently contact me before Sunday, you can do it via Behmod.

Thanks,

Pam

Coding question

Allie, a silly little coding question, but I'd like to know for future ref, and am working on something at the moment. Which is WP's preferred coding for the reference section, is it (1).<div class="references-small"><references /></div>, or is (2).{{reflist}} the preferred option? To make things easier, just refer to 1 or 2. Thanks/i/a;- Gold♥ 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldheart! Nice to see you back on. To answer, I always use {{Reflist}} instead of references-small, for a number of reasons. 1) it's tidier, 2) It's clearer to newbie editors that follow along that "this is where the references end up" 3) you can make it 2-columns later with a simple |2 option. Also, as its not transcluded, we can make global changes to how small reference lists work with one file change. It's all good :). Furthermore, {{sourcesstart}} and {{sourcesend}} complement it perfectly when adding footnotes and cites that are not embedded references. Check them out! - Alison ☺ 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Allie, that's interesting as I'm half-baked in a couple of languages. I like the global use. Always wondered about that;- Gold♥ 22:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is this ColScott character anyway?

Reading about this ColScott character, I'd like to know a little more about him in case he starts socking. I'm also wondering--should he be listed on WP:LOBU anyway? Nobody will ever unblock him after this. Blueboy96 21:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:ColScott has a long history here. He's actually Don Murphy and his blocking case is highly controversial and has been for some time. Long story .... - Alison ☺ 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, hopefully someone will speedy keep his article--clearly, the objections are in bad faith.Blueboy96 22:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Feel free to weigh in. The article is encyclopedic, even though the guy himself is obnoxious, IMO - Alison ☺ 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Eternal RfC

Alison, this RfC I'm going through is well into it's second week now. How long more? Does it end? How? By whom? Some editors appear to have been given carte blanche to say just about anything they like about me, day after day; and any even remotely assertive response by me gets cited as "more evidence". I am close to losing the cool completely here, which I realise is probably the plan. The views of he RfC are splitting down the middle along fairly predictable lines. Time to call a halt; or at least enforce some civility on my attackers (the irony). Regards (Sarah777 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

• Lemme take a look. I'm kinda busy here right now but promise to take a look sometime today. Day-job is killing me :) - Alison ☺ 22:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)