Jump to content

User talk:Alison/Archive 75

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77→Archive 80

Can you please do a check users on someone?

Hi

I wish to ask if you can do a check user on " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TDFan2006" A few other people have questioned him intentions etc, Hopeful Im wrong about this, but it would help explain a lot. Cheer ( I've had to do this via ip so the user doesn't know I done this. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.108.64 (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi there. I can't really do a check without any evidence. fish CheckUser is not for fishing, and suspicions alone and questioning isn't sufficient to allow me to run a check, sorry. If you can provide links to behavior, accounts, etc and make a compelling case, I could possibly do it. But not without - Alison ❤ 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Alison, if you've got the time, could you please take a look at this ANI thread, which seems to be devolving into a sockfarm issue? I'm feeling a little out of my depth, and you checkuserblocked the main IP once before, in 2008. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

What the heck, Alison!

Why was I blocked??? All I did was revert another users vandalism, what have I done wrong?! Can I please appeal this block. Along with an explanation of why you've blocked me. I don't understand and I think that move was completely unnecessary!

Also, what do you mean by, "Can you *not*"? That sounds like you are discriminating against me because I'm just a pathetic IP Address, aren't I? If you've just blocked me because I'm autistic, I'll be very upset. That's disability abuse, sir, and you should be bloody ashamed of yourself if you actually are blocking me for that exact reason. --60.230.248.254 (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.112.200 (talk)

You continue to ignore me.

Stop ignoring me and answer my posts, please. I'm sick and tired of this unnecessary abuse. How would you feel if you were blocked for reverting somebody else's vandalism? Don't disappoint me, Alison. --121.221.112.200 (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Ok, to clarify - these accounts are all  Confirmed as being yours, per Checkuser;
  • So yeah. And to answer your questions, MascotGuy (talk · contribs) is retired a while now and hasn't shown up about two years. Many of the accounts were checked and blocked as a matter of course and the user pages weren't tagged, so they don't show up either in the SPI case archives or in the sock categories - Alison ❤ 19:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got 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.

Jyoti (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Trial of Oscar Pistorius

Hi Alison.

I made a light-hearted post at light-hearted post at Wikipediocarcy (don't seem to be able to get that right, sorry, I do have my thing on max) about NPOV at Trial of Oscar Pistorius and you were kind enough to notice it by correcting my spelling, which encourages nme to actually bring it to the attention of an administrator which sort of thing I had rahter given up on. You do give me hoipe, Alsikson, you really do!

It seems to me that after four days of intense cross-examination of Oscar Pistorius that has been widely commented on by media the owrlk over, the Wikipedia article outhr to carry some account of it if it is indeed commenting day to day on the event. Bit as i write tghere's nothing beyond a "Nel had the opportunity to cross examine Pistorius the next day". 4our hole days Amison!

The edit I took especial objection to was this. I reverted this twice because it was plainly paortisn and when it was resubmitted scarecely addressing thew issues I had raidede I rescued myself, and in fatc retired more or less this would be a parting shit so to speak. I can also quoite this from the same editor, where the point is that there ahve been numerous blog posts in scoail media not at all supportive of Pisorius that also need to be quoited for balnace.

I would be glad if you could eye thois up for me. Thanks so much. Feel free to correct any spelling mistakes you notice her by the way (do my next book if you're volunteering, let me kowmn).

Thanks. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This morning there's another essentially POV edit which I feel needs attention. It does seem characteristic of these editors that they just barge in making their points without worrying about the continuity of their contributions: both editors mangled the existing text.
I'm busy today and as I say I'm anxious to close off this account, feeling I've done all I can usefully achieve here. But I'll look in tonight to see whether the situation has improved.
Got my thing working a bit better today BTW, but there's always my grammar and punctuation to work on if you're still offering. Thanks. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
1en oil daze Amizon! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh

Actually, NE Ent removed you... but now everybody on the list has added themselves. Woo-hoo! — Scott • talk 18:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL - Alison ❤ 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy (very belated) anniversary!!!

Hi Alison, I'm Emily. It's so nice to meet you. I can't believe you've been editing for 10 years! :) Happy belated anniversary. You do truly awesome work; plus, you are always a diplomatic peacekeeper. Keep it up! EmilyREditor (talk)

Ip address 71.59.58.63 (aka 76.105.96.92) making more of those funny move requests.

Sorry to bother you, but the editor who was making disruptive move requests (you blocked one of their IPs) is at it again with this clearly obvious one at Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'm only bringing it to you because you were the last one to block them, so you might have the best idea of what's best to do about them. Hope you're good otherwise! __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

aww come on

You really want to drag up Manning diffs? I'm quite afraid of things I said, much less others, during that mess. Better to let sleeping dragons lie.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I wasn't involved in that trainwreck myself, other than to prot the article every so often. I'm not interested in dredging up all that nonsense, but that one diff I did post was pretty damning, IMO. Leaving it at that, tho' ... - Alison ❤ 20:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to your POV but don't you think it's more useful to address in the text: A) widespread assertions - which are not reported as rumor or speculation but now reported as fact - that Foster is/identifies as gay and 2) Fosters complete lack of clarifying statement on the matter? In general I would not be for repeating media speculation but it's a bit of a special case. I think that way the reader may get a better sense - she has been dubbed a lesbian but she herself has not said so, so Wikipedia is saying in our voice, we don't know. which is better than readers thinking 'ah, ok, she came out therefore she's a lesbian'. Also on another topic, is it possible for a woman to identify as gay but not identify as a lesbian? It made me think: if actress X says 'I'm gay' do we automatically put her in lesbian cats now? Finally, I think my attempt to argue that RS aren't reliable for sexual orientation fell on deaf ears, they just keep saying NPOV RS!! Were my arguments at least well founded or did I flub it? Best --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison/Archive_75&oldid=1235953578"