User talk:Alison

RE: 'grats

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PlaneShift article

Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping

Just out of interest; as you may know, I still spend virtually all my time here reverting vandalism, blocking nominated vandals and considering articles with "speedy" nominations. Everyone else whom I grew up with here appears to have vanished; or has found better things to do. What am I doing wrong? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if I find something else here to do, will anyone else do the work which I am currently doing? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete page 2

Hello :-), I wrote to you in May and I asked you for your help in deleting the page. Please, can you look at my problem? Thank you very much for your time. --Amonet (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I think. Sorry for the delay, but I'm not on WP right now - Alison ^❤ 09:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :-). It´s ok; it was not big problem, only small mistake. Nice day :-)! --Amonet (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keegscee and sock confirmation in relation to ongoing community ban discussion

Hi, the community ban of Keegscee is being discussed at WP:AN right now. One of the main allegations is that several users are confirmed socks. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Keegscee/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_2, however, your statement doesn't confirm that these socks are socks of Keegscee but rather that they are all confirmed as being the same user. Further, the category (Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_PhoenixPhan for confirmed socks does not include Keegscee. Could you clarify? If possible, could we include a note in the SPI archive on the clarification? II | (t - c) 19:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

Allie, I have in the past tended to notify you, with varying degrees of glee, when I remove the last entry from WP:CSD. Although it has probably grown since I started this message, it was empty when I came here. Just wanted to make contact. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine~and that the Irish Wiktionary is growing constantly and surely. I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh maith agat. Tabhair aire! Capsot (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Bay

Hi there, as you're more familiar with the user South Bay (talk · contribs) and their sockpuppetry, you may want to look over Monterey Bay (talk · contribs), as this user just sticks out to me. This user's editing patterns, edit summaries and WikiStalk just makes it all the more fishy. Regards. — ξ ^xplicit 04:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note

You may be interested (you've probably heard this) in this page. The user has retired, but a block that you issued is cited. Thanks, mono 05:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CTC logo.png

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:CTC logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Plus distributor edits?

Would you please cast a quick eye over the recent history at Juice Plus? There have been several dubious edits and it may be necessary to protect the article. Also some details of remuneration systems have been added, which are (presumably) specific to the US market and are therefore too specific on WP. Whatever, action may need to be taken, even if it's just warning the current protagonists! Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a non involved editor I have come across an article mentioning Wikipedia and the use of a POV tag as advertising. [1] Have thus removed the tag as without any indication of what the POV concerns are the tag does not belong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Sudafedfiend8

I ran across a new account with obvious Wiki skills and did quick search on their activity. I discovered an SPI where the master was blocked indefinitely and I think I found some more of their socks. The suspected socks are Passenger8 (talk · contribs), 66.213.124.194 (talk · contribs), 66.213.15.250 (talk · contribs), and 64.134.161.50 (talk · contribs). I saw that you were the checkuser and wanted to alert you before I take any action. I'll probably monitor the pages for a little longer before I do anything of course unless you want to take care of it yourself. Please leave me a tb if you respond here. OlYeller^Talktome 19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Feminism

Hello, Feminism Task Force Member! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

Email

Alison, I have sent you an email regarding a checkuser related issue, please check your email and reply ASAP. Thanks. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pedophilia

Hi, I have undone your recent edit here. Please do not add the important policy tag to pages that have not achieved consensus to become a policy. Check over the discussions on the talkpage-- there is no consensus there either way and the current tag is much more accurate in describing the function of the page. Please seek a well-advertised RfC if you want this to be a policy. Remember, no editor here can declare policy by fiat just because he/she wishes it to be that way. Thanks, Them From Space 02:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ballybeg3.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ballybeg3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ballybeg4.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ballybeg4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your recent edit..

[2] Are you telling me, and the whole world that you haven't received your ArbCom draft notice yet? Or are you trying to avoid it? :D *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahaha!! I'm far too old for conscription, Foz. Nice try, though - now get back to work!! :) - Alison ^❤ 00:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Ma'am! Yes Ma'am! Pedalin as fast as I can, Ma'am! ;) SirFozzie (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed on the Administrative Noticeboards.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding reason for discussion. The thread is Wikipedia User:McYel responds to User:Alison, User:Crazycomputers, and admins.The discussion is about the User:McYel. Thank you. --McYel (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've replied over there. I could do a video response, but I suck at YouTube - Alison ^❤ 02:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding the fact that those items on my user page actually did belong to me.

--McYel (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Alison. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 14:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Smart Telecom saga continues...

FYI, at the suggestion of User:NuclearWarfare over at my talk page, I've filed an abuse response report on this contiiiiiinuing saaaaaaga. Feel free to add or tweak the heck out of it if I've messed up the format, or omitted key information. Smartiger (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page protection

Can you please unprotect my user page? The protection isn't needed anymore. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Child protection

I notice your interest in child protection and would be interested to hear your thoughts on an issue that I came across recently. I was involved in mediation of a dispute on the Monty Hall problem page. Note that this mediation ended some time ago. During the mediation, the mediator at one time suggested that he wanted to start private mediation with individual editors and wanted to contact me off-wiki by phone, IRC, or Skype to help with the mediation process. I declined to accept this although I was put under some pressure by the mediator and other editors to do so. My reasons for doing this are given in full here [[3]] and discussed at some length later on in that page.

One of my reasons for not complying was child protection. For the most part, Wikipedia is a relatively safe place for the vulnerable but you can see clear child protection issues arising when editors can be put under pressure to speak privately to another person. I was staggered by the mediation committee's lack of understanding of this subject.

In the end I changed the mediation policy to state that private mediation can be declined without giving a reason. There was some resistance to this to start with but my latest additions are still in place. Whether this is because they have become accepted as a consensus view or because no one notices or cares I do not know.

As the policy is fine now, I am not asking for any action by you but I would be interested to hear your views on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the mediators AKG has now confirmed that he supports my policy changes, so the situation would seem to be resolved. I would still be interested to hear you opinion on the subject though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something's fishy

Please confirm that User:AliceMushroomsDwinlol is your alternate account. Otherwise, I will recommend it for blocking as an evasion of block sanctions on the account User:Mickey Darwin. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 10:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not Alison. --Bsadowski1 10:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedobear.png

Please add to MediaWiki:Bad image list. Kthnxbye. Jolly Ω Janner 13:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock 3Network

You would appear to have blocked IP editing from the 3 Network. I know that you personally don't want any IP editors, but this block is improper and disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also have a semi-protected talk page, with no readily apparent alternative method for non-autoconfirmed/IP editors to contact you. Please rectify this. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, could you comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3 mobile blocked, where DuncanHill is requesting a review of this rangeblock? Thanks. Fences&Windows 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment there as well; it seems perverse that we allow Brucejenner to continue socking because a rangeblock would cause "collateral damage", but are happy to rangeblock one of the biggest mobile phone networks in Europe. It ought to be both or neither. – iridescent 20:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See...

these... did the rangeblock on JDH's home IPs expire? If so, shouldn't it be reinstated? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Gheo

Haigh :) Ní bhfaca mé d'teachtaireacht go dtí anois. Conas atá tú? Dornálaíocht (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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