User talk:Alison/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Survey

Hi Alison. Perhaps you're interested in this survey as well? (please revert it if you don't want this message on your user talk) Regards, Trijnstel (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey, Alison! I saw that you were an administrator here, so I was just wondering if you might be able to answer a question I had. The thing is, I'm an admin on a different wiki, and another admin on the same wiki posted a question to the rest of the admins asking if there was a URL that can be used to show any user their current number of edits on the wiki. On our wiki, there's a page called Special:Editcount that conveys that information (I don't think Wikipedia has a page like this though), so another admin advised him to use this URL: http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/Username. That URL would achieve the desired result, but one would have to constantly put the username of the specific user at the end of the URL when posting it on that user's talk page, so my goal was to come up with a way to avoid that; almost to create something you could post on any user's talk page without changing any part of it and still get the desired result. I came up with this: {{fullurl:Special:Editcount/{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}, this way, one could just post the coding on the talk page of the desired user and the returned URL would automatically direct the user to their respective edit count. This worked successfully for every other user whose talk page I tested the coding on (without saving the page, of course); the only problem is that the user he wanted to do this for has an "*" both at the beginning and the end of their username (the second asterisk isn't a problem, just the first), meaning that instead of being returned as:

http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/*User*

it gets returned as:

{{fullurl:Special:Editcount/

• User*}}

and doesn't take anyone anywhere, because it's just the raw coding. So I was just wondering if you knew of any way to circumvent this problem (aside from just telling him to post "http://_________.com/Special:Editcount/*User*" on the user's talk page, which isn't the end of the world, but is, of course, what I was trying to get around in the first place), maybe by putting some other form of coding that I'm not aware of somewhere in the existing coding or something. Any light you may be able to shed on this problem would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

69.204.38.3 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

Just wondering, instead of >{{BASEPAGENAME}}, have you tried {{BASEPAGENAMEE}}? It's usually a more URL friendly formatting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, already tried that, but it still didn't work... :/

69.204.38.3 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a complete loss on this one. I was hoping there would be something on mw:Help:Magic words or mw:Manual:Magic words, but no :( I'll keep looking ... - Alison ^❤ 23:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't test on this wiki, as the special page isn't available ... but you could try {{fullurl:Special:Editcount/{{anchorencode:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}}}}}}, and see if that formatting resolves the problem. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually able to find a solution that fixed the problem; just had to add {{urlencode:}} to the coding. Thank you both for your help and time.

69.204.38.3 (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please join a discussion

Please join a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. Presto54 (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Developments in the Caster Semenya article

Alison, I notice you have not commented on recent statements in this article about the release of personal information in publicly available reliable sources. I do not think anyone is suggesting a tabloid style release of personal information but it looks to me as though release of this information is not prohibited by WP policy on BLPs.

I think it would be useful to discuss how the concerns of some editors about what might be though of as censorship of information could be addressed in a way that does not unduly invade Caster's privacy. Better to have a civil discussion now with editors who are supportive of maintaining privacy that to have an edit war later. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, Martin, I need to step away from it, and Wikipedia in general right now. I can see the direction in which things are already going & I'll just end up getting pointlessly annoyed. And I've still not seen any reliable sources yet to support statements such as this; it's just crass. And when I see words like "censorship" being bandied around, I just roll my eyes. It's become a general epithet to be used when people don't get to write whatever they please, regardless of consequence - Alison ^❤ 17:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about the statement you quote, it is completely unjustified. I do not think anyone is suggesting we write anything like that.

The point is that BLP policy says, 'We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation'. We now have very reliable sources that have published information about Caster so it would not be a violation of policy to include quite a lot of detail. In this case, I agree that we should try to protect Caster's privacy as far as possible and I believe that the other editors who have commented also agree with this principle.

I think we would be able to take a firmer line with editors who want to sensationalise the article if we can have a civil discussion on how we might explain some of the rather cryptic points made about the media furore without revealing too much detail about the subject herself. We all agree that she was treated disgracefully by all concerned but there is nothing we can do about that, except maybe show a little more clearly where the blame lies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Full protection?

Hey, Allie, you seem to have accidentally fully protected your talk page. I've turned it down to semi, but feel free to revert me if you meant to do that for some reason. Courcelles 02:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry about that - I was on my cell!! :) - Alison ^❤ 02:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Hamilton-Fairley‎

Ali, when you get a chance can you take a look at the most recent edits (you'll know them when you see them in the article's edit history) of the Hamilton-Fairley article, and tell me if I am mistaken regarding referring to an individual of major importance in the above article (but not the subject) as a "Conservative M.P." in the lede.

I do not get why two other editors, whom you know well, oppose this so vehemently, citing allegations which they refuse to insert in the MP's article themselves. I left a quite restrained query on the latter editor's talkpage citing encyclopaedic standards, to which he never responded, and which he either archived or deleted instantly. I left a second message on his talk page, indicating what I thought his real reason is, which I suspect is accurate as he simply had nothing to state.

After this I rv the article back to my last version. He then informed me I was in violation of WP:1RR and to rv my edit or he would report me. I am not sure if the Hamilton-Fairley article is even under the 1RR remit, but better safe than sorry. I know if/when I restore my editing after the 24 hour period is up, one of these two editors in question will simply rv it again, and so on, ad nauseum. Hence this message (sorry it's so convoluted). Any assistance or advice will be appreciated. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ali: the matter has apparently resolved itself. Thanks anyway for listening. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Intersex grammar

Hi Alison. As a frequent editor of Intersex and commenter at Talk:Intersex, would you be able to help at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Intersex grammar? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview for the 2011 Wikipedia Fundraiser

Hello Alison, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. (Note: This invitation is open to any interested Wikipedian — If you're reading this, and would like to be interviewed as well, please contact me.) Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Alison/Archive 56! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Survey women on Wikipedia

A while ago (on 1 October to be exact) I gave you a link to a survey about women on Wikipedia. Here are the results of it. Regards, Trijnstel (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

User:hfordsa - Oct 21, 2011