Jump to content

User talk:Alison/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Edit history is available here (warning: linked page is extremely huge). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messedrocker (talk • contribs) 06:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Alison, I am writing to you about the deletion of an article titled: Healing Cancer: The Top 12 Non-Toxic Cancer Treatments To Help You Beat Cancer (2005)

The article was not meant to be an advertisement, as I do not consider Wikipedia as an advertising medium, but rather as an encyclopedia of knowledge. My understanding was that the entry met Notability requirements because it listed two reviews of the book that have been published in appropriate UK Journals. Further, I had written the entry as a basic description of the books contents, as this seems the most appropriate article entry for a book. I have no problem in rewritting the entry so that it meets Wikipedia guidelines - though at this stage, I am unsure as to what would need to be altered for it to acheive this.

I should also like to explain that a more expereinced Wikipedia contributor had first marked up the article with concerns - which I was working to alleviate - but that then another user (self described to me) marked it for speedy delete. Thanks.
Wiki5000 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I've re-visited the above deleted article and read it all through in detail again. And yes, it's a blatant advert and little else. From your edit history, I can see that you've contributed absolutely nothing other than the blatant advertising of your own two books, the other of which is featured on WP:AFD. Seriously, it fails on a number of points; it's non-notable, your edits fail WP:COI and it's an unmistakable, blatant advert. If you'd like to get another opinion, feel free to refer this to another administrator. Here's the relevant link. I note also that you've berated the two other editors who questioned your article. - Alison☺ 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Alison. The other entry was for a film, not a book (and which I agree, I cannot provide sources to show that it is notable - at present). However, I am not understanding why the book article is non-notable. I read through the relevant document, and the understanding I got from that was that if a book is discussed in at least one journal, then it can be counted as notable.

I am genuininly not understanding how such an article could be written so that it is not an advert, and as such, I would like to clarify that it is your view that it is blatant advert, not mine. I tried looking through Wikipedia to find books, but I couldnt find a way to bring them up. The only one I found was Harry Potter. As I mentioned to you, I am not trying to enter this book in as an advert, but rather I think it deserves being entered into Wikipedia as part of a body of knowledge.

For your information, I did not berate two editors - rather I berated one. The first editor marked the entry with concerns, and I did not have a particular problem with how they were expressed. The second editor seemed to feel the need to mark the article for speedy deletion, which I did not appreciate.

I do not think it fails COI, as really, it does not make rational or logical sense to judge an article by who contributes it, but rather on the subject matter of the article itself. The issue obviously, is how an article is worded, and whether it is written from a neutral point of view. I have written you that I have no problem in updating it until it is acceptable. Further, unless you are saying that Wikipedia is some kind of club, of which you have to be an accepted member, then your statement here, is I consider, unacceptable: 'I can see that you've contributed absolutely nothing other than the blatant advertising of your own two books'. And secondly with regard to this statement, you have no information on which to reasonably jump to such an assumption or assert such a claim, especially in such a tone.

Alison, really like I said in the other post. It's no big deal for me, but I have to say that I consider your attitude arrogant and improper (and not the tone suggested by the document you referenced me) - and I am sure if you read it again - you will se what I mean. Further, I would like to say, that I have seen all this before with Dmoz of which I was an editor for a couple of years. Funny thing now - is when I was there the other day - they are looking for an editor for every category I looked at.

I have better things to do with my time than engage in conversations like this. I asked you civil questions, to which you provided no reply. I have used Wikipedia extensivily over the last few years, but I have to say that my experience of the last 24/36 hours has made me think lesser of it in terms of its future. I am sorry to say.

Wiki5000 03:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Apologies if I came across as uncivil; that was not my intent. However, my review of the deletion still stands. It's non-notable, there's a conflict of interests, you've done little else here other than advertise your book/movie/book (see WP:SPA), and the whole article reads as a blatant advert as does the other one currently with WP:AFD. At this point if you wish to dispute it further, you might want to bring the issue up with another administrator. Thanks - Alison☺ 04:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Alison: At this stage I am not asking you to review your deletion decision, rather at present I am needing to understand why the article is non-notable, and secondly, how such an entry could be written in a non-advertisment way. Until I understand more, there doesnt really seem any point in moving to another editor, because I am presuming they may have similar concerns to yourself - unless those concerns are met.

I am thinking as I write this message to you, that one of the things causing us difficulties, is that though I am asking you questions about, for instance, why you consider the article was non-notable, you keep providing me with just the same information - i.e. that it is non-notable.

This just isn't providing me with the rationale or help in understanding that I am needing to judge the issue myself in line with Wikipedia documents, so that I can pursue the matter or leave it and move on. For instance, you could write me things like, there were not enough references, or the references were not in appropriate journals, or some other reason.

I am sure you can appreciate that it is frustrating not to receive answers to questions, (when you have been the judge in this matter) and actually, it also feels like it is conflict creating on/by my side, with me keeping on asking the same question. It seems like I am being stubborn or insistant

This is what I understand the notability criteria to be:

'The book has been the subject [3] of multiple, non-trivial[4] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[5] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.'

I would be grateful therefore, if you could explain me why you consider the subject of the article non-notable. And also, some indication or an example of how such an article might be written in a non-advertising way would also be appreciated.
Wiki5000 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok - have a read of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (books). They're basically the statement of where this issue is at. It is my contention and that of the original editor who marked your book article for speedy delete that your article did not meet these criteria. See the 'criteria' section on that page. It doesn't end there, though. There is a conflict of interests here in that you are using Wikipedia to promote this book (and DVD) of yours. See WP:COI. Not only that, you've done little other than these two articles, as well as comment on editors' userpages on the two articles. This smacks of WP:SPA.
At this point, if you want further address, you can bring the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review, where speedy deletions get reviewed for accuracy, etc. Failing that, you could contact another administrator or bring the issue up on WP:AN/I for review by another admin - Alison☺ 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)



Alison, I am not feeling that you have provided me with an adequate answer, despite my asking several times for your to qualify you decision, as an admin.

I do not understand or appreciate why you do not consider that the book is eligible for notability under the following description under criteria:

'The book has been the subject [3] of multiple, non-trivial[4] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[5] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.'

I just looked up the meaning of multiple in the dictionary and it states:

1. Having or involving or consisting of more than one part or entity

I would like to state my view to you, that the kind of attitude that makes a person eligible to be a good judge of things, is an attitude that enables a persons character to qualify things in a detailed manner, carefully and with consideration. In this regard, I am feeling that you replies to me lacking due respect, and the civility that is outlined in various Wikipedia documents. In detail I am referring to:

1. Even after repeatedly asking you to qualify your decision, you have just sent me to the whole Notability document - and/or the criteria section, even though I have provided you reasons why I consider it does meet the criteria listed.

2. You are still making statements in an absolute way - even beyond any information you have. Alison, I am considering that I would find your communication more respectworthy - and actually - more true (in the sense of true meaning accurate) - if you prefaced your comments with words such as: I am feeling this to be the case - or 'to me this feels like...'.

3. Your reply presents statments about my motiviations as 'FACT' - even though you are not in a position to make such statments, because quite simply - you do not know.

4. Expressions such as 'This smacks of...' is - I dont think at all, appropriate in this thread of communication. I am actually feeling, unfortunately, that I am being spoken to by the Lone Ranger or someone of that ilk.

I hope you will take more care with your next reply Alison. Further, I would be grateful if you could adopt a slightly different perspective on the matter, and rather, as I am personally suspecting (note I am owning my feeling - not stating it as an absolute fact) dredging up any more reasons that you can find for the article not to be included.

Wiki5000 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. With due respect, the onus is upon you to provide a reasonable amount of information to indicate notability. It is my opinion that you have not done that. Furthermore, you have not addressed my concerns regarding single-purpose accounts, not the issue of conflict of interests. : At this point, if you want further redress, you can bring the issue to Wikipedia:Deletion review, where speedy deletions get reviewed for accuracy, etc. Failing that, you could contact another administrator or bring the issue up on WP:AN/I for review by another admin as we're obviously not making any progress here. Best off sending it to deletion review where a panel of editors can decide (probably far better than either of us can). That way, you can be assured of due process. Thanks - Alison☺ 01:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

  • Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rklawton

Thanks, it's funny how these anon IP's get testy when you give them a short block. Rklawton 03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Red hair article

Having an issue with the Red hair article. A violation of 3RR (but not until they were halfway through was I able to "warn" them of the rule). And a suspected sock puppet. I've invited them both to chat first, with no response. I'm not sure I want to bring this up at ANI, so I thought maybe I'd ask your opinion on this first. Thanks! ZueJay (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like everything is fine and you've done all you can. If they persist, then warn them again for 3rr. You've done your utmost, including linking the pics into the talk page. I notice another editor concurs and has jumped in to defend the article. And yes, my sock-o-meter seems to have pinged into the red :) On my watchlist now ... - Alison☺ 05:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the red-haired girl pics are unlicensed so I tagged them and alerted the uploader - Alison☺ 05:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lightvessels in Ireland merge

As a member of the Irish Maritime Project and someone who, IMHO, has a sensible viewpoint on Irish topics, you might like to weight in on the suggestion to merge Lightvessels in Ireland into Lighthouses in Ireland. I posted a rather longwinded rebuttal to Frelke comments to my opposition of his merge tag on the talk page. Hope you agree that one article, as it stands with the current name, though with some expansion, as the best solution. Cheers ww2censor 05:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you got time to look at this? I did not see any comments from you but maybe you did not want to make any. Thanks ww2censor 18:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it got lost in the chaos here. I'll get to it later today. Have you thought about mentioning it on WP:IWNB? Yes, I know who's there, but bringing other experts in might help. - Alison☺ 19:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

rfcn comment

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. — coelacan — 05:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Not your fault, of course. =) If I thought it was a self-described bitch who listened to punk music, I'd not have thought much of it. Now I wonder if it's time for me to canvass every allow !voter who doesn't seem to have noticed my late entry. — coelacan — 05:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See what i'd'min!

Now that Ali's an Admin!
Is she growing kind of dim?
Don't see her 'round the usual corners,
Perhaps she's under Jimbo's orders,
And even FLIP did disappear,
Has gone out east as a volunteer!
I heard that the queen has joined the Wiki,
Please don't block her as she gets quite sticky,
So stick with the typos, and heep your nose clean,
Admin is no fun, see what I mean?

W.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jumbos nemesis (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

LOL!! :) - Alison☺ 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is it good to create user pages for 'indef' tags? Despite a desire to do so for certain vandals, I have usually not done it unless they already created a user page. I know this is trivial but I happen to be wondering now. The Behnam 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I generally do because the {{indefblock}} tag also puts them into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. It also serves to inform others and as they're indefblocked by definition, they're hardly likely to be editing the page in future. Also, as they're almost always vandalism-only accounts, they're usually empty (as you say), thus adding the template isn't usually blanking anything. - Alison☺ 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is that I don't know if it is discouraged to actually create a page just to indef tag it, since it takes up more space. However, I have noticed that WP seems to have a lot of space available... The Behnam 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that creating a page for a single tag isn't going to take up a whole lot of space. Maybe ask over on WP:AN as this is just conjecture on my part here - Alison☺ 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Also, do you know how I can link directly to a category without making it apply for the current page? I tried this here [1], but this messed things up, so I settled for the 'out-link' form [2]. The Behnam 19:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone else fixed it and I now see how to do it. The Behnam 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I see an absolute link there - like this; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Patchouli number of sockpuppets]. I tend to do that by putting a colon in front of it like this [[:Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Patchouli|number of sockpuppets]] .. which looks like this --> number of sockpuppets. This what you're after? - Alison☺ 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw what Physic-whatever did right after I posted here. Thanks though. The Behnam 06:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

indefblocked users may certainly be brough up for arbitration. they participate via their talkpage. see this link. thanks for looking out though.  :-) /Blaxthos

Yes, but that particular user's talk page is fully protected Ah - it's been removed! Thanks for the followup - Alison☺ 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Crazy Fries.

Thanks for blocking that user. They appear to be vandalizing Haylie Duff using an IP as well, so I'm looking out for that. That account was vandalism-only anyway. Acalamari 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting :) - Alison☺ 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
While you're online, the sockpuppet appeared with this edit to Haylie Duff. Acalamari 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! That joker vandalized my user page. Acalamari 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocked indef for sockiness / vandalism only - Alison☺ 23:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CCCJGD

Alison, that wasn't fair! I was just doing him, but I'm not as fast as you yet, so you just beat me to it!--Anthony.bradbury 23:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I could always do that myself, but it just might send out the wrong message!!--Anthony.bradbury 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Slavery

Wow, that was fast! You must have set some kind of record on that one. :) (Judging by the previous comment, you seem to have a track-record of speediness.) Thanks! Cgingold 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

English towns

Alison, could you advise me on that request from User:Eastmain that you commented on onnmy talk page? My inclination is to refuse.--Anthony.bradbury 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, both of them are one-liners - maybe about 10 words in total. There are no categories (yet. Comment notwithstanding) and they're both just sitting there in splendid isolation. One of them (Berry Hill) has been deleted three times now. The other is a council estate. My opinion is that both should stay deleted under WP:CSD#A1. If the editor is still not convinced, they could maybe bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review or ask another admin - pref. neither of us - Alison☺ 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. They both seemed to me, and on re-reading still seem to me, to be wholly non-notable. I was just a little disconcerted by his statement that a similar article had in fact been resurrected. I shall tell him "no", but offer deletion review if he wants.--Anthony.bradbury 00:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I note that they've asked for them to be restored to their userspace where, I presume, they could work on them to bring them up to scratch. Good compromise, maybe? - Alison☺ 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I think not. they are both so short that re-writing from scratch in userspace will take about 15 seconds, and I have suggested that this is what he should do.--Anthony.bradbury 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Patricia Gras page

could you check this page and tell me what else I can change so that the tag "fan site" can be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.174.100.66 (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! It is apprectiated much! Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

SatyrBot 04:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RPP

I don't mean to harass you but I noticed you're active at RPP at the moment and the unprotection secion is a little neglected. Could you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ziaur_Rahman_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 ? I think someone got a bit overzealous. Thanks. —dgiestc 06:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


User:Alison

Do you think User:Alison's homepage is Wikipedia, she is always online when I check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.166.184 (talk • contribs)

To Think

The Irish for what do you think is cad a ceapann tú. You're welcome.--Play Brian Moore 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'h' in the present tense. Doesn't take as gaelgoir to know that. Also, if you think "tusa" is more correct than "tú", I would advise you to kindly inform the Irish Department of Education because mé-féin along with thousands of others were thought tú. Somehow, I think I might trust them over you. No offence. Tá siad níos-cliste. Also, minor thing but Tíocfaidh Ár Lá means our day will come. Go raibh maith agat.--Play Brian Moore 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to know just what Tiocfaidh ár lá means can check WP. Now quit trolling on my talk page - Alison☺ 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Drunk Yet?

Alison you drunk yet?.--User:Fenian Swine|Play Brian Moore]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.166.184 (talk • contribs)

Do you like talking to yourself. : ).--Play Brian Moore 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"never will be a member of a terrorist organisation" - what you talking about now - the British Army, Mircosoft or Sky TV?--Vintagekits 14:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fleet captain (Star Trek)

Hmm.. I've already fully protected the page. Looking at the article history and talk page, it doesn't appear that the editors discuss with each other before making actions nor are going to establish consensus anytime soon. A request for comment has already been opened. What is your opinion on the issue? Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I concur with the full prot on the page. The two editors are filling out long comments in their edit summaries by way of justification so I'm hoping that will continue on the talk page as they've just run out of option :) I guess the RfC will have to run its course and they abide by that - Alison☺ 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Disgraceful

If you acuse me of trolling one more time, I will ask an administrator to step in. You are lying. It is disgraceful and it puts serious doubt into my mind about who is running the place here when an administrator can lie about something and not even be questioned. You have no proof at all and a simple IP address check would show it is not me.--Play Brian Moore 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Take it up with another admin, then. Post it to WP:AN/I if you really feel the need to. I can quite clearly discern between the two sets of edits on here but that's not what I was referring to. Second request - quit trolling on my talk page - Alison☺ 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. You have no examples. In fact, if anything, you are the troll. Tóg a bog é.--Play Brian Moore 16:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Third and last time - quit it already. Next one gets reverted - Alison☺ 16:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

e-mail

Just sent.--Anthony.bradbury 18:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dutch declention/ Govert Mierevelt

I have no idea where this/he came from, or what his objectives are. He's accusing me of all sorts of things and makes little sense on the articles talkpage.As far as I can see he's pushing an article escentially about archaic Dutch declention as contemporary Dutch declention. As a result we now have a page which, if compared to English, now says that "Thou shallst not do(st) that" is contemporary everyday speech/writing. Rex 19:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

300 (film)

I don't really think 300 (film) should have been semi-protected. It's not really the target of rampant vandalism from anonymous sources as it was when it was originally semi-protected (see halfway down the history page). Most of the reversions now come due to content disputes, which is being played among multiple users – anonymous or registered. -- tariqabjotu 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back; it could worse, but it's pretty bad already. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: User:Pogemahome

Ah, ní thuigim cad úsáideora sin tá séis, ach tabharfaidh "glac do focal", abair. :) gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Amish

Thanks for keeping an eye on the Amish article. For some reason it seems to be a vandal magnet. Wachholder 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

your WP:AIV work

Your work against vandalism does not go unnoticed. I seem to be finding way too many today. MrMacMan Talk 22:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


thanks

And this username, unlike Wikipedier, is undoubting acceptable with the username policy?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


Usernameblock

Hi again, I just wanted to let you know of this username being blocked, and that I left the blocking administrator a message requesting to lift the account creation block, so that the IP of which the user originated from could still create a new account. I'm leaving you a message because I hope that I didn't go out line with that comment on the blocking admin.'s talk page.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No - I'd say you did the right thing to question it. It looks like the ACB flag is set this shouldn't be the case. I'm going to add the {{usernameblocked}} template just to ensure the editor knows what's going on. Thanks again - Alison☺ 23:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. The ACB still hasn't been lifted on the log, and the user won't do so until it's lifted to "noautoblock", I think. I also asked the administrator a question. What's offensive, inappropriete, or inflammatory about "Cool cat". What does it infer? I'm just curious.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 00:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to modify the block as the blocking admin may have meant to indefblock with ACB on as a recalcitrant vandal/sock and just got the blocking comment wrong. It happens! Let's see what happens ... - Alison☺ 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Monkeys rule 99

Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for letting me know. —tregoweth (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008

Thanks so much for granting the semi-protection. Take care! ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 03:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mandy Moore

Sorry to bother you. Could you please semi-protect Mandy Moore? I would have placed it under WP:RFP, but since it is a featured article and it has vandalized by IP addresses I thought it would be quicker to personally ask an admin to protect the article. Thank you! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 03:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nikki hiemenz

This article needs a vsit from a sysop to get rid of it. Are you busy? 219.89.21.117 04:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of that anon at Azerbaijan (Iran). I suspect that the account was being used as a sockpuppet due to the specificity of the issue, but there are so many warriors there that it may be difficult to suspect anyone in particular. I'll keep an eye out anyway. Thanks again. The Behnam 05:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. I checked their edits and they look a whole lot like a certain other editor on that page. They also reverted that article four times in rapid succession. Thanks for reporting! - Alison☺ 05:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You Rock

Alison - you rock. I (and many others) appreciate you keeping an eye on AIV, and your quick action taking care of it. Many thanks. Philippe 05:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence
For her incredible work (which is also mentioned earlier in her talk page) in keeping AIV clear this evening. Philippe 05:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks

Hello, I see you gave that last IP that I reported one more warning. From the way I saw it, racism like that results in minimal warnings, and many times, immediate blocks without warning, which is why I quickly reported the IP.(Likewise, I understand that it's important to be patient with newcomers and assume good faith, you can give a special thanks to Wooty, who reminds other users to do so and not bite the newcomers, like I did at one point. However, I do have zero tolorace for racial attacks, but it's your call to trust the user to stop.)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 05:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I know. I can't stand it either. However, I have to kinda apply due process and note that the editor wasn't given the usual set of warnings, specifically the one that mentions blocking. Note, however, that if they return to vandalise, it'll be an immediate block. Keep up the good work - Alison☺ 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use this template. Would that also be used for racist vandalism? If not, I'll just use the {{bv}}.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (Iran)

Please be more careful when making vandal patrol reverts: this edit was clearly not vandalism, just a major change by an anon. In fact, you got right in the middle of a long edit war, making the same content revert a some of the other edit warriors there, who are getting blocked. It's clear from your edit history that that wasn't your intention, so you might want to think about that edit again. Dmcdevit·t 07:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That anon made multiple reverts there. If anyone is the edit warrior it is him. The Behnam 07:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If you think mere reverting makes something vandalism, you ought to read WP:VAND again. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, Dmcdevit. I made a bad call there. Another admin who is involved with the article contacted me and I reduced the block to three hours last night. However, you're right. I need to apologise to that editor. - Alison☺ 16:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't think the block was a terrible idea (except that, having made the revert of what looks like non-vandalis, making the block as well is questionable). Indeed, since I came along and blocked the other two edit warriors for 24 hours each, the anonymous edit warrior got off easy when you reduced the block. It's not a huge deal, though. Dmcdevit·t 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I reverted far too quickly in that case. I should have checked more carefully. Lesson learned! :) - Alison☺ 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

hello alison, i was able to get in here now. thank you. brett mann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Mann (talk • contribs)

Email

Oh sorry about that. That's just a conspiracy I'm trying to alert. I don't to cause any vandalism or anything. Thanks for the warm welcome. Darkness of meta 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It made interesting reading :) - Alison☺ 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Schoolblock

I'm talking from my school and am wondering if I can schoolblock my own school or if an administrator does that. Also is there a quick place to go to to ask questions about wikipedia instead of policy pages. ~Anonyblock'd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.12.120 (talk • contribs)

Thanks!

Thanks a bunch for reverting vandalism on my user page! :) --Aiyda 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) - Alison☺ 17:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Honda Pilot - I need another set of eyes or two

Hi Alison. I'd like another admin to have a look at User:Honda Pilot's talk page and contribs (neither is very long, he just arrived today) so that I can get a second opinion on his good faith. I'm also going to consult Bbatsell and Nawlin Wiki because you all seem to be around right now. A Traintalk 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. New account today. Straight into WP:AIV and WP:RFA so they're most certainly not new at all. Could be an anon just signed up. One of their comments to an anon editor I'd just blocked kinda weirded me out earlier. Giving suggestions for block times is kinda unorthodox to say the least. this edit was obviously an attempt to fix a redlink on The Chanukah Song but they didn't know how to create the right stub for it so they inserted commentary to that effect. WP:AGF on that one? It looks like on one hand, they've little or no article experience but on the other, they're into administrivia. I think the edits are done in good faith but many of them are dubiously constructive - Alison☺ 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Ali. Help me keep tabs on it, if you can. A Traintalk 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jeff Defender. User Honda Pilot (talk · contribs), along with Uninsured Driver (talk · contribs) is part of the same set of puppets. These are no brand new users; they know all about AFD, RFA, ANI/I, and blocking policy (and are trying to influence it, to make their disruptive editing easier.) They frequently do a few things like fix some vandalism and (as you observe) misformat or misspell things or otherwise make goofy-looking "mistakes", in a rather poor effort to be seen as new, good-faith editors in hopes of getting the benefit of the doubt when they do disruptive things, which is all they are really here for. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks! I realized that one wasn't going to please everyone no matter how it was done (those no consensus discussions are the worst for that, unfortunately), but I certainly appreciate that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV reports

I just went to comment to Willirennen about making inappropriate reports of IP addresses and noticed you had already had to do so earlier. I think we need to keep an eye on that one... WjBscribe 00:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Two or three times today already that I've had to drop entries from AIV that they nominated. They're just being a little over-zealous, is all. Keeping eye on, however ... - Alison☺ 01:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF

How dare you accuse me of trying to harm Wikipedia! I have contributed more than a good amount of other members on Wikipedia, how dare you try to disgrace me in such a way. -PatPeter 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggested you read WP:AGF and assume good faith on the part of User:Coelacan's edits. He had a genuine concern and you got snippy with him, just as you are with me. Like I said in my comment, I respectfully asked to remind you of WP:AGF and I do so again here. I'd also like to know where exactly I "accused" you of "harming Wikipedia" - Alison☺ 03:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, but since you commented in the CFD you may be interested in this. — coelacan — 04:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Commented. That's worrying - Alison☺ 04:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You did not make it clear in the least that you wanted me to assume good faith on anothers behalf. You made it seem very very clear that I was WP:ABF. Especially after saying PatPeter WP:AGF where according to English word order you were telling me to assume good faith.

Please, if you understand what I am trying to say tell me before making your rebuttle. -PatPeter 18:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • What, may I ask, is ambiguous about "may I respectfully remind you of WP:AGF here", when it says "This page in a nutshell: Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."? I cannot get much more explicit, really. I most certainly did not make it "very very clear" that you were supposedly acting in bad faith, given that I only wrote one line. Why are you bringing this up now? - Alison☺ 19:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cub Wikipedians

I've decided to close this CfD discussion. It is unacceptable to orphan a category without consent of the users in it then nominate it for deletion for being empty. In any event its the wrong forum for the discussion. If the nom has other concerns about this user category (hopefully with more substance that the one's demonstrated in this edit summary: [4]) he should start a new discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion so there doesn't seem any need to wait for comment from him. WjBscribe 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Good call. I just hope the nom appreciates your rationale which I believe is quite justified in light of the evidence. Thanks again! - Alison☺ 04:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Given the two likely meanings of cubs- Cub and Cub its probably not the wisest category to have- image some young Wikipedian getting confused... Still that was not the way to go about arguing for its deletion. By the way, take a look at the nom's userpage- do you think the flashing sign is tasteful? I was going to comment but the way he's set up his talkpage is incomprehensible. WjBscribe 04:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Oops! re. cubs. Hadn't thought of that :) I suspect, however, that the nom knows little about the sociology of the gay community. And yeah, offensive user/talk page. People generally like to append their comments to the end of a talk page (like this!) but it's forbidden - Alison☺ 05:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor, look in the history of Category:Bear Wikipedians and see who nominated it for deletion? — coelacan — 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I considered WJBscribe's note about possible confusion, and after consulting with the folks in the category, I've emptied Category:Cub Wikipedians in favor of Category:Bear cub Wikipedians. Please go ahead and delete the former. — coelacan — 02:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Should I revert changes made by a blocked user?

Hi, I recently posted a suspected vandalism and you have warned the user. He/She is also blocked. Now should I revert those edits made by him? They are external links added to wikipedia articles to his own company. Mugunth 07:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd say "yes" in this case. If they were blatantly spamming, then revert the links unless they're somehow directly applicable to the article in question - Alison☺ 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Alison, I'm going to be on a Wikibreak for just under a week. I won't have much internet access while gone- only very occasionally via a dial-up modem. Would you mind keeping an eye on my talkpage and dealing with anything that needs admin attention? I would be extremely grateful. If anything comes up that really needs me to deal with it personally (e.g. a DRV of deletion discussion close by me) could you email me and let me know? That'd be really great... WjBscribe 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Iranian Azerbaijan

I want to apologize about leading you into that AIV report. I had misinterpreted Dmcdevit's block warning as a 1 revert rule when it was in fact a 0 revert rule, which is why I reported that Anon after he reverted twice. I then got blocked for reverting once. I'm not sure if his 0RR edict is a legitimate alternative to article protection, but I in any case would like to apologize your leading you into mistake, as it was really my fault. The Behnam 09:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dublin

Yeah, I'm really excited. Having a summer just working in a bar and not reading and writing papers all the damn time is just what I need. Natalie 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletions.

Would you mind deleting these four pages: User talk:Acalamari/Archive 1, User talk:Acalamari/Archive 2, User talk:Acalamari/Archive 3, and User talk:Acalamari/Archive 4? I'm not deleting my archives; those four pages were redirects, as I've renamed my archives. Can you please delete those four? Thanks. Acalamari 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Done :) - Alison☺ 19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry to bother you. Acalamari 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ip rolling to harass editors

Please see [5] which has been going on all day. Since you blocked one of the many Ips behind this trouble. Retiono Virginian 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning user:24.94.120.34

See [6] and [7]. Thank you. --DrBat 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

userpage edits

In fairness, look at this page before PatPeter edited it. It had Category:Place of origin user templates, Category:Original Wikipedian userboxes, and Category:Book fan user templates on it, and shouldn't have. Some people want to take the time to clean up that sort of thing, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's the execution. I've made a suggestion that I hope will help. — coelacan — 23:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. I totally agree. We've all edited others' userpages and it has been acceptable. It's all about the approach, like you say. I agree with your suggestion and hope it's taken on-board. If there's anything I can do to help the guy, just let me know - Alison☺ 00:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

random thank you

Just a random thank you for swooping in and fixing things all the time...especially on stuff that I watch or care to look at:-P. Thanks! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 00:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

'Blacklist'

As an admin I'm hoping you can explain this situation. NeutralWriter (talk · contribs) has complained (User talk:The Behnam#Googoosh) that I have somehow 'blacklisted' him from editing Googoosh. Obviously I have not done such a thing, but I don't even believe it is possible to 'blacklist' someone from a different page. And it is also clear that the user is not blocked, so I do not know what is going on. Can you clear this up? It would also help for that user to know what is going on, as I certainly do not. Thanks in advance. The Behnam 01:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sysop weight

The template is here: User:Nichalp/sysop. The funny thing is that it never used to leak. (From looking at the history of the template). I would appreciate it if you could fix the CSS code. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Googoosh Edits

Understood about the para break, but if you compare the article with other musician FA articles (as noted on the discussion page), the part you broke up is usually part of the same train of thought, and therefore still part of the Lead. Thoughts? Arcayne 13:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You

Hello Allison,

I am very surprised you left me a threatning message. In fact I would like to ask you why you keep on deleting my link? I believe there is no reason for that at all. It is clearly related to the subject (São Paulo) and it was there since long ago. Furthermore you are replacing it instead of simply adding a new link to the list. As an administrator you should know this is not tolerated by Wiki's policy.

Therefore do not threat me again and do not erase what you shouldn't. Otherwise I will take the propoer actions against such animosity acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tricolog (talk • contribs)

  • Since this is the first edit in this particular account, I've no idea who you are. Nor have I much idea which article you're referring to as I can edit hundreds of articles in a good day. You'll pardon, but I don't do threats very well, especially when they refer to certain "proper actions". You'll need to be a little more specific here - Alison☺ 14:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, now I know who you are. As your anon IP address, you were reported to WP:RFPP yesterday[8] for vandalism and linkspamming. I took the case and decided to warn you[9] with a boilerplate {{spam3}} message instead of blocking. However, I note that instead of stopping, you left me this comment and persisted in spamming and revert-warring[10]. You were reported again this morning[11]. This time, I've blocked your IP address for 48 hours and tagged your IP address as a sock of this, your main account. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM to understand what you did wrong here. If you wish to followup and make a complaint about me as an administrator, you can use WP:ANI to bring a case. - Alison☺ 18:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Well, thanks for your help in the São Paulo Futebol Clube article... I hope he/she stops that behavior... Garavello 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. They've been blocked for 48 hours - Alison☺ 19:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks! for the S-P for my talk page, obviously this person doesn't like me since I'm reverting all his vandalism.--JForget 22:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. For my troubles, they vandalised my talk page about 20 times yesterday in an attempt to make disparaging comments about you. You must have really annoyed them! Thanks for the good work - Alison☺ 18:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a crackpot

Thank for semi-protecting Ramesses II from User 69.211.223.189 or is it User 63.3.22.1? Why its the very same person putting nonsense on Ramesses II and Ahmose I! Arthur Weasley had to revert his nonsense in this article on Ramesses II:[12] while Thanatosimi, a registered Wikipedia editor, removed his nonsense on Ahmose I here: [13]. With this anonymous IPer, no one know who he/she is! I don't doubt the pharaoh of the Exodus is Ramesses II because the Israelites appear in Canaan during the reign of Ramesses II's son Merneptah. Secondly, the Bible says the Israelites were compelled to toil laying bricks in the cities of Pithom and Raamses (Exodus 1:11) under the Pharoh of the Exodus. Personally, I trust the Bible more than some anonymous IPer. If this person persists, he/she should eventually be banned. Leoboudv 03:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The articles' subject material is way beyond my experience so I can't really comment about their edits. However, they're both on my watchlist now so I'll keep a lookout for what I can. Thanks again - Alison☺ 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but this may be possible vandalism

If it clearly says on a page "Do not post anything here" and someone post something. I call that be stuborn. WP:VAN states "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Furthermore it goes on to say "Stubbornness" is when "some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else." In this situation. Iamunknown has deliberatelly decided to ignore the concensus elaborated by the creators of WP:RM and keeps adding comments where it is not welcomed. If you don't consider that vandalism I really don't what is anymore. If it isn't vandalism then my edits would be in violation of 3RR and I should be blocked for at least 24 hours. --CyclePat 06:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, this is an editorial dispute, not vandalism. Could you please talk to me as opposed to everyone else about me? How am I deliberate [attempting] to comprimise the integrity of Wikipedia? My changes aren't opposed "by everyone else"; they are opposed only be you. --Iamunknown 06:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • CyclePat - I didn't block that editor on WP:AIV because you both are edit warring. The other editor (above) is making other constructive edits and is involved in dialogue. It's not a case of simple vandalism and I suggest you guys work out your differences on the article talk page - Alison☺ 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

The user who made these comments is someone you are already acquainted with apparently, based on my latest sleuthing it's Robert Sieger. One Night In Hackney303 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • What??? I just reviewed their edits and it looks like you're right! Same biographical interests. Same edits. Same edit style. Same categorisation. Same use of strange date and in-link formatting. Exact same POV in the Daniel O'Connell article and, most tellingly, in that comment, they mentioned a username "taigkiller", who was actually a blocked sock of RMS. It may be time for WP:RFCU if they're being repeatedly disruptive. Please do keep me posted on this. - Alison☺ 18:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a checkuser done on RMS that I managed to find, but I'm not sure how much information was gained from it. Based on the investigation I did on the latest socks there's ample evidence linking them to 216.194 prefixed IPs, which RMS has definitely used in the past. Don't think checkuser will be necessary based on the duck test, I've referred it to the admin who knows most about the case and I'll see what happens from there. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 00:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Indef blocked, you'll be pleased to know. One Night In Hackney303 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank goodness. RMS was dreadful in his heyday. Where's User:Demiurge when we need them? :) - Alison☺ 07:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
He's back! It was actually his edit here that put all the pieces together, before that I just knew it was a sockpuppeteer but RMS was before my time. One Night In Hackney303 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing Block Request

Alison, would it be appropriate for me to remove the block request for the IP of User:Rwilkins1987? --Prewitt81 07:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Both him and his associated IP have been blocked for 24 hours - Alison☺ 07:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm actually a newcomer to Wikipedia myself and I should have paid more attention I guess. --Candy156sweet 12:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sprotection

Alison, I've proteced your talk page for 3 hours as it was getting hammered by an IP. Hope you don't mind, I was just getting sick of reverting then blocking Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help with User:Philosopher1. As part of the cleanup would you mind removing the sock tag that he placed on my user page? It was vandalism but I would prefer that it be reverted by an admin so there is a clear audit trail of this event. Buddhipriya 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You deserve a cookie today for your help dealing with vandalism. Thanks! Buddhipriya 18:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Wikipedians who support Israel

You deleted this category citing "housekeeping." Is there any actual reason you deleted this category? Oren0 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. From my deletion message; " (WP:CSD#G6 content was: '{{db-xfd}}{{cfd-user}}Israel')", you can see that it was marked with a header for speedy deletion and that it was listed at WP:UCFD. You can see the closed UCFD entry here, where it states that the almost unanimous decision was to delete the category. The UCfD was not closed by me, nor did I vote in it. I've no interest in the category other than being the janitor who got the job of deleting it. - Alison☺ 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Israel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Oren0 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that you are mistaken, Oren0. Alison did not close the discussion. jc37 closed the discussion not as speedy delete but as delete. The category was then emptied and then Alison speedy deleted the category precisely because it had been emptied. --Iamunknown 00:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
As Iamunknown says, I explicitly didn't close the discussion. Had I done so, I would have left it for an uninvolved admin to delete it. As I am (now was!) an uninvolved admin, I followed up on the UCfD and deleted it, as voted and tagged. I've left a comment in the deletion review to that effect. Just for added interest, the article was also marked for speedy. Thanks for notifying me - Alison☺ 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ballad of a blocked Wikipedian, (hypothetical)

"Oh what a load of POV we have today.
Must do something about it, come what may".
From edit to edit, but not unseen,
He spurred at the spleen of a Wikipedian queen.
"Block! Block!, I most solemnly air,
Your edits are awful queer,
I can't even offer a prayer,
For your type is so terrible rare,
All I can do is despair,
You are clocked my friend, I swear"..
So he stood up and pulled off his hair!..
Then the mouse took a hop,
The screen went pop pop!,
And nothing remained but a chair.

Allie, I wrote this one this afternoon. I didn't realise that it could be so true. I am really fed up with WP, and I'm never coming on again. It's just over for me with WikiP. It might depress you, or it might make you smile. Cheers anyway. Jumbos nemesis 03:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Depressed, Jumbo, depressed :( - Alison☺ 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Something to add

In reference to the Richard Marx editing problem, I wanted to add that this person edits with three different IP#'s. The numbers are 63.3.69.133, 63.3.69.136, & 63.3.69.6. The first IP#, was the one that he was blocked from using. You can WHOIS each set of numbers to show that it comes from the same source. This is the link where the user was notified that he was blocked by Oscarthecat:

User_talk:63.3.69.133

I'm not crying over spilt milk, I'm just simply showing that I wasn't wrong on the blocking issue. Otherwise I admit my mistake. Sorry again about the misunderstanding. Take care and have a good week... --Candy156sweet 05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears discography

I'm afraid that this is par for the course so far as pop-music-related articles, and especially for the end that appeals to adolescent and pre-adolescent boys. I've had a couple of years battling with them, and it's a frustrating business. Progress is possible, but it's incredibly slow. They all have their own ideas as to how best to glorify (or, occasionally, vilify) their personal favourites (pictures, bold, capitals, italics, fancy boxes, etc.), all want to document the tedious minutiae of their subjects, and none has any knowledge of or interest in Wikipedia guidelines and policies (especially on formatting, notability, and the giving of sources), or the relevant WikiProject styles.

Protection would be a reasonable short-term measure, I suppose — though they probably won't bother to discuss things, and they'll be back in like a shot as soon as it's lifted. If they insist on reverting correct changes to incorrect, they can be blocked for disruption (it takes a lot of blocks to get through to them, usually). A long patient slog is generally what does it in the end, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

green

Alison, thank you for taking time to look into the situation. I am rather green with Wiki and appear to have run headlong into an edit veteran. Rather than assist on how to properly incorporate edits, she simply reverts and cites her POV of the rules. I have seen many articles on wiki that have entire paragraphs which do not cite specific sources. Smee will write paragraphs which cite a forum as a source and then delete someone else's edit which cites the same forum and label it as non-reputable. She reverts most of my edits within days, often by combining them with multiple other edits or re-writes, to avoid calling it a revert. She refuses to take part in discussions and, based on experience so far, she is completely unwilling to compromise or assist in finding a way to make the edit valid. In one discussion, she simply stormed off and said she was 'removing the article from her watch list' and then a couple days later, she returned to do some more reverting.

The situation is very distasteful and does not do wiki a good service. I have looked around and it seems that Smee gets involved in numerous warring disputes with anyone who posts counter to her views. Based on the articles she has written and the edits she makes, it is little wonder that she gets into such controversy.

I am trying to balance out the articles on wiki, particularly for now in this anti-cult arena. I am attempting to provide references and edits which provide a reader with access to information on both sides of the issues. Smee seems to summarily delete or revert any attempts to balance the articles. A thorough review of her edits and articles will verify this.

What do I need to do to resolve this? Your help/advice is appreciated. Lsi john 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact now you can see.. she just added the LGAT category to Mind Dynamics which is 'not supported by sources'. And she is reverting other edits I have recently made. Lsi john 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Answered on both your talk pages - Alison☺ 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my talk page. Now that third party has been requested, (and an opinion given, counter to what she wanted) Smee (unilaterally) decided to rewrite an entire page and has tagged it as undergoing major revision. This is a classic example of what we have been dealing with. Lsi john 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I already replied to you about this. The article was tagged so I could add more sourced citations. The tag has since been removed. Smee 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Alison, now, having received Third-Party opinion that a cited source is invalid List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations, the reference was removed. Having no additional supporting citations, the listings were removed. Smee has now reverted the entries back onto the list and tagged them as soure required. Is this how the RR works? Just put back what you cant cite and mark it citation needed? If every single edit has to be taken to a dispute hearing, then wiki is not worth the effort. Lsi john 01:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for semi-protecting dog again. I requested the protection last time, and I felt bad requesting it again so soon after it had been unprotected. However, the article attracts vandals like a dog attracts fleas.--Kubigula (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's been on and off prot for years (mostly on!) :) - Alison☺ 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Off-topic, slightly.. is Scuba Diving protected? I have noticed recently that it has been routinely vandalized by someone using IPs and not editor names. Lsi john 19:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Scuba Diving isn't protected at the moment. I note that things were fairly bad today but the main vandal has now been blocked. Other than that editor, there isn't really enough activity to justify protection right now as some of the anon editors over there have made good edits and it would be a pity to lock them out of participating - Alison☺ 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still getting used to finding my way around and wasn't sure. I saw several acts of vandalism this weekend and wondered. Lsi john 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Scuba Diving - revisited - 198.109.238.11 appears to be making numerous vandalisms on wiki, what is the proceedure for blocking it? Thanks. Lsi john 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi John. You need to report it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (also known as WP:RPP) follow the instructions there and place your request at the top of the list. You can request full protection or semi protection. Full means only admins can edit the page and semi protects it against anon edits and new accounts. There's also move protection to prevent the page from being moved about. Add your request+rationale and an administrator will come along, review the case and act accordingly. I could do it here, but it would be a cool learning experience. Good luck! :) - Alison☺ 17:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Help

Allie, if you are free we could do with some input on WP:CSD.--Anthony.bradbury 22:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Karl-Henrik Robèrt article

You recently deleted this article while I was working on fixing it! I'm not sure whether you read the discussion page or not, but the original deleter (back in December '06), JoJan, had restored the article today, at my request, so that I could review and re-write it. Karl-Henrik Robèrt is someone that we are definitely going to want to have an article about. The significance of his work is only just beginning to dawn on us North Americans (despite the fact that Europeans have based a great deal of their efforts towards sustainability on his work).

So I was working on the article and, if you noticed my changes, had made considerable progress — representing a couple of hours worth of research and writing. I would like to finish that work. There was a note from KillerChihuahua that he was going to delete it (again) and I responded (see talk page). I even removed all sections that have not yet been re-written. Then you happened along. Would you be able to restore the article so I can finish? I think that people who put their time and effort into editing Wikipedia and who are attempting to abide by the policies should be supported. Or am I missing something here? Sunray 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I see that it's been deleted a total of three times already. KillerChihuahua's comment was that it still contains copyvio material. I can see that you've committed to putting a lot of work into it, though, and have already established a kind of notability. I checked the speedy tag, noted the talk page and the delete history and deleted it. I will undelete this, per User:JoJan's decision but will move the article to your userspace/sandbox where you can work on it until it's clean and reasonable. I'll have to delete any copyvio text however. It's quite obvious that you mean well here, so best of luck with this - Alison☺ 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • done!! - copyvio text already removed. Happy editing :) - Alison☺ 23:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, I've been editing here for 3 1/2 years and have never intentionally made a copyvio. I think I know what happened to this article, and I assure you it was inadvertent. I know what copyvio is. So it would be helpful if you point out something that you see as a copyvio, rather than just hit the delete button for someone who is obviously not your standard vandal or plagiarist. :-) Sunray 23:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point here, but copyvio is one of those check-and-nuke-on-sight things as it brings up legal issues. If I see a speedy tag and it goes on to fail reasonable sanity checks for copyvio, it's gone. I totally accept that this wasn't your intention though, and that your edits are all done in good faith. Keep up the good work - you've been here longer than I have :) - Alison☺ 23:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you see a copyvio in the article you restored to my sandbox? Sunray 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's okay now - it's got a lot of direct quotes from the subject, which make it difficult. It's a somewhat reworded version of one article I scanned briefly but should be okay - Alison☺ 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Full name

Thanks for the suggestion to remove my full name from my user page, but it wouldn't do any good. It was all done by one person who knows me well (we go to school together), and in any case the damage is done.

--NetherlandishYankee 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for all of your help so far. Slàinte! Yours, Smee 04:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Philosopher1 (talk · contribs)

I've now extended the block to 1 week. This editor doesn't have so great a body of work here that I'm willing to look the other way on increasing personal attacks against other editors.--Isotope23 13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Allison, as I have several links to the page I created in Wikipedia from my site, I want a response ASAP as to WHY my entry was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.184.196 (talk • contribs)

Most grateful..

...for your kind words at RFA, and for your quick fixup of my user page! I'm sure it must be nice that you're getting to deal with only charming and good-natured people like our friend above this. Ah, well, I can't say I didn't know what was in store for me. Thanks again and all the best! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Vandalism.

I see you had your talk page vandalized! On my talk page, I've only received a couple of attack messages; no ones' blanked my talk page or vandalized the messages. More interesting things happen to my user page than my talk page (in the sense of bad-faith edits; the good messages on my talk page are fine and interesting :).) Acalamari 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I've been getting hammered lately, though the vendetta is against someone else. They reported the vandal and I blocked them. Ryan had to sprot this page yesterday, it had got so bad at one stage. I've been watching your userpage and some of the vandalism has become quite ... umm ... "creative". At least it's better than the usual "POOOOOOP!" vandal. So childish! - Alison☺ 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean the vandalism about Natalie Erin's and mine WikiRomance? It's good, isn't it? :) The user also vandalizes Natalie Erin's user and talk pages, and has even gone as far as to put "Love, Acalamari" or "Hugs and kisses" at the end of every message I've left on her talk page. Acalamari 23:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I know - I'm almost afraid to admit its entertainment value lest it encourage. Still, not fair that you all get the interesting vandals!! :) - Alison☺ 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Block log

Re: U.S. House of Representatives: If you have an administrative comment or whatever is analogous to an edit summary for a block, put it within <!-- comment tags --> so that it appears only when looking at the block log rather than being the message shown to the blocked user, and leave a proper block message, such as the previous one. Right now, anyone using that IP sees this obscurely worded "Re-applying previous admin's block with ACB flag cleared" message rather than the actual reason why they were blocked. (This is an issue with any block, but especially this one.) —Centrx→talk • 22:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I understand. Thanks for explaining that. I'm especially twitchy about applying anything to that address but felt the original block with ACB was slightly too punitive given the nature of the account. Some sort of block message needs to go up on the talk page, however, and in this case, I don't think boilerplate text is appropriate. I've sent a message to the foundation but have not received anything in return yet. Thanks for clarifying that - I was unaware that comment tags could be used in a block message - Alison☺ 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • David Gerard has now stepped in and re-applied the block with a modified message - Alison☺ 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Prithwis Mukhopadhyay

Could you review this delete real quick? We're having some problems with db tags being removed. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that. User has been blocked for 24 hours. They got more than their fair warning. I'm leaving the article for another admin to delete as I blocked the creator. - Alison☺ 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

tut tut

You know that "fair and balanced" is an insult in the USA, don't you? — coelacan — 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are so funny! =D You know nobody was going to notice that except me, and only because I was looking for something to kid you about. =) — coelacan — 03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Block log

Are you sure you want my opinion? We gained adminship within a week of each other. Indeed, I've been taking some of my cues from your work. If, however, you would like me to review your block log anyway, I will do it.

On an vaguely related note, I wish to compliment the photographer responsible for your user page photo. I don't know you, but the image gives me the feeling that it's projecting a lot of your personality, and that's rare. Rklawton 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd love your opinion actually. I've also noted some of your edits on AIV and had been learning from those (seriously!). It'd be kinda nice to know I'm on the right track as some of my blocks are starting to filter through on unblock-en-l for review. Only if you really want to, though. Skim though a few ...
As for the pic - well ... that was just snapped by me in work one evening on a cheezy webcam with some funny software. It's a fake snarl :) I'm not really that bad in RL but the pic kinda sums up my reaction to wikitrolls and vandals. I'm normally more like this - Alison☺ 03:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I dig that pic too. My complements to the clicker. — coelacan — 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh my!! - Alison☺ 03:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
And hey - not everybody likes it - Alison☺ 03:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. By my reading, he didn't actually say he doesn't like it... — coelacan — 04:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ewww! *ick* - Alison☺ 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I just found the block log query page that would help me with this. Unfortunately, I may be a bit busy over the next couple of weeks. I'll get to it, though. I've e-mailed you a one-day analysis based on your autoblocks, but that's note quite the same. Here's an interesting thread that's just firing up over 6 month blocks for school IP's: [14]

  • Thanks for that. I got your mail yesterday and I owe you a reply. Thanks for taking the time out to review them - I feel a little more comfortable now. BTW, re. the above user, see this from my newb admin days - Alison☺ 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Grace Hopper

I'm a big Grace Hopper fan, so I noticed the quote on your user page. I've got another one for you: "Out of my way sonny, I've carried my own bags my whole life." You won't find it anywhere. She said it to my step-father as he tried to help her from taxi to hotel (when she worked for DEC). After her (3rd) retirement from the Navy, she wore a blue suit that very closely resembled her former uniform. My father also met her when he was working to integrate BASIC into the Navy back in the day. Ever catch her "Pico Second" lecture? It's a classic. Small world. Rklawton 03:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Awww - that's lovely & totally sums her up. Grace Hopper was one of my heroes when I graduated & I remember reading about her in "Portraits in Silicon". Her and my current boss, as it happens :) Needless to say, I never met her in person. Her "picosecond" was legendary & she used to carry a copper one with her into lectures for emphasis. I heard another story of her going through US Customs once. One of the officers asked; "Ma'am - are you a US Navy officer". She replied that indeed, she was. "Wow!", he said, "You must be the smallest one they've got!". She was awesome. Computing has quite a number of powerful women; my own claim to fame is having been taught Forth by Liz Rather. Check this out, BTW - Alison☺ 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Ada was either "Air Defense Artillery" or a programming language to me. I never thought much about the person. Rklawton 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

10,000 Edits.

I checked your edit counter; you're past 10,000 edits. Congratulations. :) Acalamari 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

comiserations more like! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I gave up counting! - Alison☺ 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, big editor. Step out of the way for alison! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've a long way to go yet! :) - Alison☺ 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
lol, true, however I have slowed down significantly. (now that I have the tools, i end up doing more deletions and blocks and less article diting unfortunatly).-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh - I'm exactly the same! In fact, I'm going to slow down in a big way as the day job requires some intense attention right now and I'm also risking admin burnout - Alison☺ 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL, I said once I'd slow down too ... and I'm at my "day job" with people queueing up at the door ... :) Congrats on the milestone! Antandrus (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You as well!! LOL!! Glad I'm not the only one :) - Alison☺ 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I am pesronally suprised my day job has not complained about the time I spend on here. I am a software developer though and with sarbanes crapsley, i spend all my time waiting for reviews and approvals and about 1/10th of the time actually programming. Sad, isent is! (well, at least it gives me time for WP). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Josef Vašíček

A user has taken your protection to the protection policy's talk page. I thought I'd tell you on the off-chance you wanted to weigh in on it, though it doesn't seem to be much more than a hissy fit backed up by assumptions of bad faith. – Steel 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection conflict

Hi there: it appears we happened to cross paths in protecting Cat and I've accidentally changed the expiry time for the semi-protection. You can put it back to how it was if you want (I really wish the system would tell me if another admin's already protected the article, but I guess that's the breaks for now). Heimstern Läufer 23:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That was FAST! Thanks!

Mucho gracias and all that for reprotecting horse. And quickly too! I have no clue why someone thought is was a good idea to remove protection that has been virtually permanent. Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! Montanabw 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) For the record, though, it's bad policy to indef protect articles as anon editors also make valuable edits and having an account here is not mandatory. Use sparingly! - Alison☺ 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for attending to my request on WP:RFPP. I am sorry that by doing so you had to be confronted with Gene's typically swift and entangling attack mode. Happens to everyone every now and then I guess. Or, every all the time, in my case. :-) Regards, Húsönd 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Frankly, I'm disappointed by Gene's attitude he displayed there. Aggressive, argumentative and downright rude - not the sort of thing you'd expect from an editor of his experience - Alison☺ 18:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

What can I do to help revert vandalism more? Is there a helpful Java program or some such thing? I'm on my soapbox about it right now. KEYLAY31hablame 05:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Silkroad forums

I agreed with you and considering the amount of vandalism on the article I added it to Wikipedia:Protected titles/April 2007/List as Silkroad forums and Silkroad Forums. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tee hee - [15]. --Zamkudi 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Meh! :-b Missed that bit ... *blush* - Alison☺ 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning user:65.25.138.138

Repeated vandalism to Golf handicap. Final warning has been given, and spamming has continued. I Respectfully request another block on this IP address. Thanks, Rahzel 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New template.

I've never created a template before. Was it a good idea to create "Template:Vanessa Anne Hudgens"? I felt there would be a use for this template, so that's why I made it. Acalamari 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

I just came across your user page quite randomly. I was just going to ask, how do people get awards and barnstars? I've been on Wikipedia for quite a bit now, and I still don't feel like I have been given any recognition for my efforts. pizza1512 Talk Autograph 19:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Wow thanks for that! That is so moralising. Cheers. :) Wow I've just been going through your user page and you're Irish! I've never met an Irish person before - and its not surprising since I've hardly been travelling. What's it like there? --pizza1512 Talk Autograph 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

MSG

Can you restore the 18:01, 12 April 2007 version of this article? The protected version is the slashdot vandalized version. -- THF 22:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

IP

Thanks :) Yeah, I did figure out what he said.. Baristarim 05:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

smee makes good on edit-war threat

Alison, how do I report an edit war on Large Group Awareness Training ? Smee has threatened to remove my edits and then she did. And this is while mediation is pending. Lsi john 05:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Can you show me where she said that? Far as I know this was already discussed on WP:AN during the week. If the problem is serious enough, you may need to open an RfC. You guys already tried MEDCAB, right? - Alison☺ 05:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have not heard a thing from medcab. She removed the 'unbalanced' tag from the article.. there is a discussion at the bottom of the talk page for the article where she threatened to remove the 'unbalanced' tag if i could not provide proof and citable sources that show the article is unbalanced. She's reverted 2 times already in 10 minutes. Lsi john 05:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, the unbalanced tag is a call for people to help find citations. If it can be backed up with citable sources, then there would be no need for the tag. Lsi john 06:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I was told (by you? or the other editor?) that I would be contacted when medcab was ready. Ive heard nothing from anyone on the issue nor any discussions. I dont even know what/where WP:AN is. Lsi john 06:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The user has not yet stated why he has added the unbalanced tag, other than to state that the article is "unbalanced". Now I will not remove the tag again, and yes, we are both still waiting for a mediator on this issue, but I feel that it is extremely unfair to keep an unbalanced tag on an article without justification from the editor who added it, on the talk page. Smee 06:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
  • You both really need to work out your differences as it's just getting personal at this stage. Personally - the 'unbalanced' tag is no biggie. It'll eventually be peer-reviewed anyway and the tag be kept/removed accordingly. Your repeatedly removing it is only going to annoy the guy. It seems to me that he has a genuine question over the balance and is using the tag to seek the opinion of others. Your removing it only makes him feel (somewhat justifiably, IMO) that you're trying to silence him. See my point? - Alison☺ 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And yes - someone needs to follow up with medcab, as this is getting more and more urgent. It's 11pm here and I'm still working so I'm a bit time constrained here right now. Can someone else here maybe help out? - Alison☺ 06:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, yes, I do see your point, but I wish he would help out and state his reasoning more clearly, with some evidence. The tag can stay. For reference for john, here is the current mediation page: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10 Large Group Awareness Training. Still waiting on it to officially open, but much has changed since then with regard to the various articles in quesiton, RE: many more reputable secondary sourced citations have been added... Once, again, thank you Allison for your kind help. Smee 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

She saw your point in that article (with 2Rs already), yet she reverted in another article. This has been my observation of this contributor with several other people as well. thats 'observation' of documented edits and complaints, not my personal opinion. Lsi john 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, reverted, and then opened a dialogue of discussion on the talk page, which, by the way, the editor had previously not engaged in. These baseless accusations and baiting are getting tiring. Smee 06:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Can you please provide a citable source which shows they are baseless? I can show numerous places which document edit warring and complaints. Claiming that I am making baseless accusations is a personal attack on my character and implies I am a liar. I resent that and wish you would please stop it. Lsi john 06:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Let's both cut it out, and wait for the mediation. I think I have shown recently that I can work on painstakingly backing up my assertions within article space with lots and lots of reputable secondary sourced citations. That is what I find most fun here on the project, the hunt for reputable citations, not dealing with these issues... Smee 06:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Mediation Cabal

Please don't edit the mediation cabal pages. We will take care of it. --Ideogram 06:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

65.247.55.12

You may want to consider semi-protection of User talk:65.247.55.12 as he recently just added some not-so-nice comments to your block on his talk page. He has a habit of adding lovely descriptions of sexual acts and genitalia to warning templates left on his page. Bmg916SpeakSign 18:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Woops, already done as I was leaving you this comment. Bmg916SpeakSign 18:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
sigh - yet another insecure, penis-obsessed vandal. WP:RBI applies. - Alison☺ 18:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Might want to read over The Friends of gays essay, and take a quick look at the "Men with big penises" section. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Looks like a sound policy proposal to me! Chin up, Ali. Who knew being an admin would be such a pain - great reason not be one, eh? ZueJay (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh - very good indeed :) - Alison☺ 06:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
160
160

Thanks for holding the fort...

Cheers for keeping an eye on things while I was away- slowly catching up on things. The Danny RfA close looks really messy- hadn't anticipated it getting that close when I left... The RFCN reforms look sensible. Anyway, it doesn't look like there was anything I was needed for. Have a pint of the black stuff- feel free to substitute your prefered tipple but remember to avoiding incidents of WP:EUI... Best wishes, Will x (WjBscribe) 18:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Kewl! Glad to have you back on here. Yeah, things were quiet on your side & I looked into a few things. Didn't want to mail you about the two or three requests up as that would only drag you back on here. Hope I did the right thing - Alison☺ 20:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC) (Guinness works for me :) )

Watchlist add request

Alison, I'm going to you and Ryan P for a little back-up here.

Damian Chapa is an article about an actor that is a source of constant vandalism that violates WP:BLP. The vandalism comes from a dynamic IP (or several?) and comes at a rate of once every few days. It's too infrequent to semi-protect the page, and it's been going on for many, many, many months. Even if s-protection was a viable short term option, the vandal is so persistent that it would not be tremendously useful in the long run.

Do me a favor: add the article to your watch list and help me keep an eye on it. I've never seen a Damian Chapa movie (and judging from the filmography in the article, I doubt that I ever will) but I don't need to explain the dangers of running afoul of BLP to you.

If you've got any better ideas, drop me a line. A Traintalk 20:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Added. I saw the note earlier on ANI. Never heard of the guy either :) I can see from the history that a range block is not an option but note that one of the main vandals got a tough sentence[16] I'll see what I can do - Alison☺ 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Jesus, did I really block that IP for a month? That's pretty uncharacteristic of me, I'd like to think. I think I'll go reduce that one; it's really rather pointless to do extended blocks with vandalism coming from such a wide variety of IPs. 20:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support Israel

Hey, the category should definitely have been deleted but I think you might've forgotten to remove it from the relevant user pages. Also, if you happen to have the link to the CFD I'd appreciate it although it's no problem if you can't be bothered as regardless of the fact that I was using this category on my user page I'd probably have supported its deletion. Yonatan talk 00:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Prozac

Hey Alison,

Recently you changed the Prozac page because much of it was copy/paste from other sources. However, there was very relevant information on that page that I can not locate in the "external links" page. (should someone want to put the information back in an original context).

Point being, you have left that page with almost no information about off-label uses and its extensive history.

Before deleting such massive amounts of key information, couldn't you have just reworded the page rather than butchering/vandalizing it? I don't see how one can even retrieve all of the lost information.

For many who are suicidal, that page was pretty useful in determining if this medication was right for them. Thanks. You have made wikipedia that less useful. Kudos on your job well done and no contribution whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwouldhave (talk • contribs) 05:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

  • I'm in the middle of adding cites to it as I write here. Take a look - I just saved some. For the record, I've been suicidal myself in the not-so-distant past. I'm still on citalopram so I'm more than aware of anti-depressant drugs on a personal as well as a clinical level. And again, I did not butcher/vandalise that article nor would I rely on Wikipedia for medical advice, but YMMV. I'm currently in the process of rebuilding the article from scratch, and would appreciate your time and help in getting it good again, so do feel free to dig in. BTW - I didn't delete the original article as I wasn't an administrator back then. That was someone else. Furthermore, another pharma editor found much of the original copyvio text and deleted it before I got there. I found the rest - Alison☺ 05:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The information, BTW, isn't lost. It's still available but not publically visible. An admin with a lot of spare time could pick through it and untangle all the good from the bad. The article was deemed unsalvageable by an administrator back then. See my "not so fast" comment from back then [17] but it was already deleted - Alison☺ 06:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Web X

Hello... I see that you've just deleted my page on Web X... It said something about "Blatent Advertising" But I am not trying to advertise anything at all... I'm just trying to define the WORK I've been doing over the past sever months, and more specifically the past 3 days I've been awake working on a proposal...

If you could please inform me what I did wrong, or how to change it to make it correct I would greatly appreciate it. Also if it is possible for me to get that content back? ('cause I didn't save it anywhere)...?

Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks, 

     Mike

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrappeyDP (talk • contribs)

  • Hi Mike. You can see from here that the article had been repeatedly deleted and eventually ended up SALTed to prevent its reappearance. To be honest, it's not particulary encyclopedic and reads like a blatant advert. Apart from all that, there's a conflict of interests as the original web forum commentator/proposer was yourself. It may also qualify as original research. However, if you wish to contest the article's deletion, you can do so by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review - Alison☺ 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For your really kind support in my RFA. I am attempting to put the tools to use in a constructive way. Sheesh, careful deletion of CSD candidates is slow work so far. I already see some things from this side of the fence that aren't so apparent from the other, like how much help it is if users have already warned regarding the speedy tagging. Please feel free to drop by my talk page for any reason.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Alison, even during this mediation, she has repeatedly reverted edits. Even when the edits specifically gave reasons and requested discussion prior to reverting. Her show of WP:FAITH was to post in the discussion "quit deleting cited sources".

I truly believe that if someone watches her and reads all of her articles and edits; truly looks at her pattern and content; looks at the way she adds LGAT category to unrelated articles, but justifies it by adding a reference to a company which she was able to link to LGAT, then they will see the same pattern that I and others see.

She never adds a single thing which shows LGAT in a good light. She never adds a single thing which shows any of the companies in a good light. The point here is, it isn't sometimes or seldom, its never and that shows a pattern of WP:SPA as it relates to this subject. She never writes anything against the anti-cult party-line on LGAT.

I am firmly convinced that these are not innocent edits. She repeats the pattern in each article. She repeatedly has the same issues with multiple editors in numerous articles.

Each edit, by itself, seems innocent. Each article, may seem innocent. But the entire series, when looked at in total, paints a much clearer picture of what is going on.

Unfortunately MEDCAB seems only geared to address specific content disputes on specific articles and specific edits and is not able to deal with an overall pattern of abuse and pov pushing.

Alison, she writes and edits articles about companies and the only thing in those articles is LGAT propaganda. The only place I know of, where Klemmer & Associates has been called LGAT is on the rick ross forum. The only reason the article was created was to link it to the LGAT propaganda. Smee did not 'create' that article, but she added and edited the LGAT references. There was nothing notable about Klemmer & Associates, other than this link to the LGAT verbiage.

I see this as a problem. Other contributors also see the same issues on their articles when she adds the bias and innocent pejorative undertones. A symphony isn't comprised of a single violin. It is not until the entire orchestra is assmebled that a concert can be heard. Lsi john 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the terms I'm looking for are: WP:TE WP:NOT ? Another editor suggested the terminology "pattern of subversive behavior". Lsi john 04:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fluoxetine

Sure, I'll see what I can do. WP:PHARM doesn't seem to be getting much action... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I've added a section on pharmacokinetics, copy-edited the History a little, and rearranged the lead. Please feel free to jump in at any moment ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Fvasconcellos. I'll try to add more over the weekend here, if I get the chance. It's top of my hitlist right now. Probably better that it had been deleted that time as it had got terribly crufty - Alison☺ 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Take your time. I hope those extra buttons haven't got you too busy :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


86.129.125.164

Alison, I found this when I tried to edit an article, "You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. - Alison☺ 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)"

Did you block me for a reason? If so what article did you find vanadalism, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.125.164 (talk • contribs)

  • Hi there. The IP address which you now have was used for vandalism on 2nd of April. Check the edit history here. As the block was for 48 hours, it's long expired and the vandal has since moved on. Your best option, really, is to create a new account for yourself so that any edits are accredited to you and some vandal's edits are not. - Alison☺ 22:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Astronaut

Did you unprotect thaat template? it still says 'this page is proteted. You can view the source.'Jer10 95 Talk 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ngo Dinh Diem Protection

Alison,

I'm new to this. What is the "RfAr" link? --VnTruth 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I requested arbitration on the page listed for that purpose, and thought I followed the directions. If you hit "edit" at the beginning of the requests, you'll see it. However, I can't seem to save it (other than in draft form). --VnTruth 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RMS

Community banned you'll be pleased to know. One Night In Hackney303 01:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank goodness for that. Myself and Robert go back years on here. Take a look at last year's evidence at User_talk:Alison/Robert Sieger to see what he's been at and his modus operandi. One thing for sure, now that's he's had two community bans, I guarantee you that he's not gone for good. - Alison☺ 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh I know he'll be back again, but now he's community banned the rather handy {{db-banned}} comes into play and I'll take great pleasure in using it on pages he creates. Hopefully when he sees all his edits constantly being reverted and pages being deleted he might take the hint and stay away. One Night In Hackney303 06:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The nanooks

No biggie. These things happen! Natalie 05:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Scots, Attacotti and Deisi

Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks great and is verifiable, esp. since Gaillimh added a cite. I just read it over and tidied up a little. Nice to see you back, BTW :) - Alison☺ 03:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

New socks of User:Maleabroad

You may be interested to know that some new socks of User:Maleabroad have surfaced, documented at User:Abecedare/Maleabroad. I bring this to your attention because you have had some dealings with User:Philosopher1 and again with the vandalism of my page last week. The newest socks are Electromagneticwaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Emptycrowd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I expect to see more disruption along similar lines as usual. Buddhipriya 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Name change?

Hi there, I saw you edit one of the pages that I have edited, and I notice that you are an Administrator. I was wondering could you help me on this. Well I just discovered yesterday that my username is connected with a very erotic website. Not so much that I mind what other folks get up to in public, but I would like a name change. I have searched around, and cannot find the relevant page. If you could put me in the right direction, I would really appreciate it. Thanks. Taramoon 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I hope you don't mind me answering (either you, Taramoon or you, Alison), but I have this page on my watchlist and figured I'd drop a line here to let you know that the fellows over at WP:CHU can help you out. Cheers! gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Gaillimh :) Yes, just head over to Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the instructions at the top of the page and a Bureaucrat will come along and change your account. If you need a hand, just let me know - I can check it over and do the clerk part. Just make sure that the new name isn't already taken and you'll be fine! Note that the name User:Tara has been taken but has never been used. This can be taken by usurpation if you like, which is a different process. See Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations for how to do that. That's how I changed my name from User:Ali-oops to User:Alison. - Alison☺ 02:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That's Beau. Thanks! Taramoon 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Not much progress yet on it. I have lodged that request to Wikipedia:Changing username. Can you pronounce the request, they seem a bit busy up there. If you can't, thanks for the help in any case. Taramoon 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
These things can take a little time, as a bureaucrat needs to attend to it. I've checked it over and it meets all requirement so the 'crat is unlikely to turn it down. Chances are it'll get done in the next day or so .... let me know if it isn't - Alison☺ 00:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Done now. It generally takes a day or two. Secretlondon 06:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all. Gold_heart 11:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi - not sure if it's on your watchlist, but as a prior editor I thought you'd be interested in the ongoing discussion/dispute at this article. It appears to be progressing well, with help from User:Sanchom. In any case. hope you are well! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Ryan. I got there a little late and it looks like compromise of sorts has been in. The article is now back on my watchlist but as I've made some edits over there in the past relating to POV, I'll just be in editor mode - Alison☺ 06:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That's more than fine - there's nothing going on there needs an admin, anyhow. In any case, it's bedtime for me so I bid you a fond gute nacht! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Fond Oíche mhaith :) Catch ya later - Alison☺ 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon! Just a quickie - if you haven't noticed - the articles on Brandon Teena and Gwen Araujo are often trolled and your watchful eye would be appreciated. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Added to my ever-growing watchlist :) - Alison☺ 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If I can ever return the favor, do let me know... :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you possibly email me? Thanks! - Alison☺ 20:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Will do :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

apologies

Wanted to drop a quick note to apologize for messing up your cite fixes on the shemale article. (I'm new and my formating skills are still pretty poor.) Best Fixer1234 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh hey, that's no problem at all! It happens :) I like your cite from Andrea James' cite & tidied it up just a little. Keep up the good work! - Alison☺ 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This IP

Hi Alison, it looks like you formatted this block template incorrectly for this IP, making it look like {[subst:blocked}} instead of the standard format. I think the problem is on the left you added {[, instead of {{.--[[Special:Contributions/U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.|U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.]] (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm always doing that as it's almost automatic now. Feel free to be bold and fix them where you see them, though :) - Alison☺ 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I just didn't want to modify your comments, especialy on a block notice, as I read it was considered vandalism.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, not if it's done in good faith, in fairness. I don't think anyone would have called you on doing that! - Alison☺ 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For all your administrative work...

...thanks. You do a heck of a lot. Just make sure you don't burn out. :-) --Iamunknown 05:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) I think I need to slow down a bit and work on some articles! - Alison☺ 20:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel O'Connell

Just reviewing this RfPP- can you fill me in on some background. Is that an edit war or just one disuptive editor? WjBscribe 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a POV magnet and was a favourite haunt of RMS. The anon editor who posted on your talk page just now happens to be Robert. I've just blocked them and will take responsibility for that one. Beware that the article is probably loaded with POV on both sides of the Nationalist/Unionist divide. Sorry you managed to get involved! - Alison☺ 19:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll protect it then and have a good look at later. WjBscribe 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I see user:Demiurge has already reverted. Demi is more than aware of the situation with RMS - Alison☺ 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Alison, If you read my edit, you will find I did not call anyone "West Britons," it was used in a quote and reference in the article. Could you possibly address this on my talk page, as it would give editors the wrong impression of me. Thanking you in advance Regards --Domer48 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the reference in question is not actually a quote from Mitchell and thus should really be toned down. Calling anyone a "West Brit" is bound to raise the ire of trolls like Robert. But yes, apologies if it wasnt a direct quote from yourself. I'll address that now - Alison☺ 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alison, I really appreciate that, and it actually is a direct quote (in the introduction to JJ, I have four different editions and it is there in all of them). I will put it in inverted commas, so as not to have the same thing happen again. Regards--Domer48 20:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Best off clarifying it and maybe adding the wikilink to clarify, if you like - Alison☺ 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Alison, Unfortunately the page is blocked now, so I will have to wait for a while before I make the necessary changes. Thanks again, Regards --Domer48 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I note that another admin is looking into it - Alison☺ 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To keep you up to date. The need for protection seems to depend on how many of the editors on one side of the dispute may be socks- which isn't obvious. I intend to leave the protection for a couple of days and review the situation then. If no good arguments against the present version have been made on the talkpage I'll unprotect. Does that seem a reasonable approach? WjBscribe 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. I didn't know about the checkuser. In light of the block and those results there isn't much of an active dispute left. I'm not sure protection policy justifies it staying protected. It does need an independent eye and I'll look at it and encourage others to. Maybe a note at Wikiproject Biography. But I'm minded to unprotect. WjBscribe 21:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's RMS being disruptive again. Go for unprot if you like. It's a tough one (and I did warn you!! ;-) ). I'm going to post a message to WP:IWNB to get both it and Michael Cusack reviewed. Good work, you!! - Alison☺ 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Email disruption

Hey. Since I seen you wrote on Darkness of Meta's userpage about that dodgy emai. It turns out hundreds of Wiki-users has recieved it, and one of the users has created a userpage section about it, where you can comment, [18]. Plus, this user has became a big, big problem after violating several policies and has been using open proxies to create hundreds and hundreds of sockpuppets. Just to inform you, the debate is here. [19]. Retiono Virginian 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I am also proud to award you with this barnstar as you are a helping, friendly editor. Thanks Retiono Virginian 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Protection

Thank You for protecting this page! It's really going to help! Happyme22 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. I was the admin who turned it down last time. Since then, it's obvious that things have just got worse. Thanks for letting me know :) - Alison☺ 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Re that secret delivery you requested yesterday, I'm still waiting for feedback... :-) NikoSilver 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops!! I forgot :) - Alison☺ 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

RPP

Thanks! Amazing ... I remember what it was like being 13 myself; no thanks, I sure wouldn't want to have to go through that again. LOL. Number 39 is for these kind. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And Number 44, I suspect. Good for you for keeping a cool head - Alison☺ 00:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page IP vandal

Thanks for reverting the weird ravings of 68.96.212.147, whatever his/her problems may be. I noticed that I was not the only target, but his/her contributions seem to have been cleaned up by now. Eggishorn 00:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe that person has a genuine problem and it's not straightforward vandalism. As they weren't blocked, I and another admin declined protection of their talk page. Glad to hear they've stopped, though - Alison☺ 00:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that the person using that IP address at the time was not occupying the same plane of reality as most of us, but is there a way to place a user contributions page on a watchlist? I think there is a need to keep an (non-admin) eye on that address in the near future. Eggishorn 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Newington College

Thanks for protecting Newington College as I requested at WP:RFP. The article's history is a low key and long simmering mess with one over-zealous editor fighting a one-person battle against other editors who may be sockpuppets or at least SPAs with COI issues. I was hoping that the recent discussion on the Talk page would help us make progress but the edit warring has continued. Maybe this will get them all to the table to talk! Thank! --ElKevbo 01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah they are sockpuppets or SPA with COI. I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Silveriver DXRAW 01:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article was completely out of control. Hopefully, things will cool down a bit now - Alison☺ 01:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Alison. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Fidsah

Could you please block and protect this user's talk page please? Their contribs are mainly vandalism, and they are another "penis obssessed vandal" and they keep rving my comments on their talk page as vandalism however he is rving to his changes of the warning templates I left for vandalism, along with some personal attacking edit summaries before the ones marking my edits as vandalism (when they clearly are not). Thank you for your time. Bmg916SpeakSign 02:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were blocked by User:Husond, but I don't think the talk page was protected, I'll ask the blocking admin. Thanks! Bmg916SpeakSign 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Eh, user hasn't touched their talk page since being blocked, so I guess nm on that too. Bmg916SpeakSign 02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

IP block

Hi Alison, I come to you because this anonymous IP has vandalised the Christian Dior article on April 16th, I went to his talk page to warn him only to see the numerous warnings and blocks he's already been the object of. Seems the person behind it has a problem with fashion related articles. Maybe you could do something about that ? Thanks in advance :) Thiste 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, another vandal to this article, this other anonymous IP has been warned properly but his edits were also anti-gay xenophobia...
Maybe there's a policy against that ? (I'm no expert). Thanks for your time! Thiste 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. There's not much I can do right now as both of then have stopped and have not received a final warning. One of them just has, however, so if they offend again, best bet is to report them to WP:AIV if they offend again. AIV is the best resource as it's (hopefully) monitored around the clock by admins, so you're bound to get the quickest response. Thanks for reporting! :) - Alison☺ 04:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff

Can you unprotect Carlos Latuff --thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.107.121 (talk • contribs)

  • Sorry, I can't. It was only recently protected by another admin for persistent anon vandalism and your request to WP:RPP a few hours ago was turned down by another administrator - Alison☺ 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:4.225.237.94

Alison, can we please do something more than a 48 hour block here? By leaving this account around we leave comments like "DIE ALL NIGGERS AND JEWS" in the comment history. I find that so incredibly offensive and I just can't understand why we give a racist sack of shit like this IP address a second chance. I think, frankly, that we should report this IP address to the FBI and ban it from Wikipedia forever. --JayHenry 04:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd love to, trust me. I'd indefblock them in a heartbeat for that kind of comment. However, there's no point. Their IP address is from a dialup pool (I always check first) and they will have moved on to another and someone else will get blocked by their bad behaviour. I feel the same, but there's nothing you or I can do. WP:RBI, I'm afraid :( I'm sorry. Today I had to semi-protect the South Korea article due to the intense racist vandalism that was posted there. It's disgusting - Alison☺ 04:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, I understand that. Thanks for the response. Is there anyway to at least remove the hateful edit summary? I'd never seen WP:RBI before. I guess I need to remember to take a deep breath and just move on when the vandalism gets too bad... --JayHenry 04:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry - there isn't, short of calling a steward. It'll be lost in the edit stream in no time at all. Wish there was something I could do. Re. vandalism, yeah - the best policy is not to let it get to you. - Alison☺ 04:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh HAHAHAHAHA....

Your deletion summary made me laugh hysterically, since you didn't have to post the text. Whoah, my side hurts. Teke 04:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I had to go look. That was awesome. Natalie 04:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL!!! OMG - that's terrible :) Phew ... - Alison☺ 04:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (needs to be a little more diligent, methinks)

DOWN WITH THE <marquee>IRISH commies.</marquee>

HAHAHAHA long live Norway - the greatest. klaus

LeaveAGuide (talk · contribs)

I reverted your block on this editor. Your summary said: "vandalized past final warning", but when I checked his edits, he appeared to have stopped after that final warning was given. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like you're right. Sorry about that. I misread the time (it's 3am here. Bedtime!) - Alison☺ 10:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 3am? Yes you do need some sleep. I am not at my best in the middle of the night either. Regarding User:Maxman2049. I see how his edit to Saddlebrook is not helpful, but I think explaining the NPOV policy is better than blocking him for it. I also don't see new creations that got deleted, but I could be wrong about that. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Transexualism

The reference I took out was clearly POV, the gentlemen is a Christian with his own agenda, I dont think Wikipedia supports agendas. First off, the sentence talks about "Jerry" a christian miniister who backed out of the operation and has claims of many post-op transgendered with stories of regret - first off it is only his claim and even if he could back it up - its all in support of his agenda why SRS is wrong, etc. If one wants to talk that some people regret or back out due to religious reasons thats NPOV, the statement i took out was blatantly tied to a christian agenda, not to inform wiki people. ForrestLane42 12:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

User:Mr oompapa has left very threatening abuse on my userpage

In the matter of two days. User:Mr oompapa has devastated wikipedia creating well over 40 accounts using open proxies. Because I arranged of a community ban. He has launched various attacks on my userpage which contain my real name and other abuse and I've had enough. It's getting out of hand and this muppet will not stop. What do we do? Retiono Virginian 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I just blocked another sock 20 mins ago. Dunno what to say, as I was hit too, last week, on my talk page. I've semi-protected your userpage for two weeks and will extend it to full if necessary. Your user and talk pages are now on my watchlist & I'll revert where and when I can. I recommend you take down your real name if you can and any personal/contact details ... just to be safe. I'll keep watch where I can. Silly, power-tripping vandals - Alison☺ 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how they know my personal details. However I will change my name details in my google-email account from my real name; to first name Retiono, second name Virginian. Retiono Virginian 15:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Crazy Dog Nike

Hi Alison, I was wondering if you could make your block of this user permanent. The puppetmaster has been using abusive socks to attack user:Calvero JP with increasing frequency since March 29, 2007. Cheers, Flyguy649talkcontribs 22:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD

Allie

OK, the other 198 then. To be fair, I did see you there.--Anthony.bradbury 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, missed that. Can't be everywhere, although I try to.--Anthony.bradbury 00:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh!?

I'm nothing to do with oompa or whatever, I've been targeting irishguy before him and will do so again (just to make it clear). Dunno what oompa has been up to, but I assure you I only vandalise stuff outside of article space, so it doesn't harm legitimate users. Who on earth is that? 00:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Newington College

The article currently headed Industrial Relations Dispute and sometime as Staff dispute requires input from someone other than DXRAW. Can someone independent be appointed to write or scrap this article. Sorry, for some reason these 124.183.179.94 00:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC) don't work on my laptop.

I am independent other than all these WP:SOCKs, Also i see that you dont want the article at all which looks like a WP:COI. Alison sorry to have you dragged into this mess by the WP:SPAs DXRAW 08:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Quack quack

RMS back again, thanks. One Night In Hackney303 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Nope, sorry. Go ask Demiurge. Robert will just dig his heels in. It's a pity as he's not a bad editor of biographies and stuff, but his POV and his hatred of what he sees as Catholic/Irish/Nationalist/Etc. just keeps getting in the way. One word - Alison☺ 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the kind words, Ali - I'm still reeling from having unblocked Da Man himself :) Maybe he'll buy me breakfast on Monday? :p – Riana ऋ 12:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

My talk page has been protected from sockpuppets of the looney User:Mr oompapa as not abuse, but pacific harrasment and nonsense kept being but in place of the page. Retiono Virginian 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus the WP:RFCU case has been declined as each Ip that has been generated by the open proxy he has been using has a different range. So it seems we can't stop him :(. Retiono Virginian 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need WP:RBI. I dont think we should mention his name again. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting my talkpage. Is this likely to be User:Mr oompapa? I only recently realised that I blocked that account in the first place.... WjBscribe 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Doubt it, somehow. Not his modus operandi. Ok - WP:RBI time, as Chris says. Feeding time over :) - Alison☺ 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
RV - as Chris says, ignoring them is the best option. Seriously. Like recalcitrant little toddlers, they feed on attention. - Alison☺ 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough- what was I talking about again?... WjBscribe 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Dunno. Did you say something? ;) - Alison☺ 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking Mordifighted

His edit to my talk was weird and I didn't think he had good intentions. How long is he banned for? WikiMan53 (talk) (sign?) 18:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Indefinitely. Self-confessed sock, stated vandalism intent, revealing personal details on editor. Thanks for reverting that message, BTW :) - Alison☺ 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your help on my RfA. I appreciate the constructive comments. Although I realize that my RfA was pre-mature, I was impressed at the kindness of the wikipedia community. Happy editing, and thanks again for your help! --Trumpetband 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, I wanted to know what your opinion on the username of Gwenol. I left the user a message, requesting that he went to WP:CHU, becuase the name seems to be too similar to Gwernol, but I certainly did not report the user to WP:AIV, or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, which, would have been the next step, at most. I remember the importance of assuming good faith.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, you're on the wrong track here. "Gwenol" in Welsh means Swallow, as in the bird - Alison☺ 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. I apoligized to the user for the mistake.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Please accept my apoligies.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh hey - don't worry about it. No harm done - Alison☺ 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: the pagemover

Thanks for that. Nice to see you again, had no idea you'd catch my complaint. I'm about to go on a two-week vacation, so I hope someone keeps an eye on this guy. Turns out one of the pages he turned into a redirect was one that had finished its AfD with a decision to "keep." But there's a faction out there who seems to believe that no one at all who died in the Virginia Tech massacre should be mentioned at all no matter how notable they were even before their deaths. --Yksin 23:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Norsemen Religion

Hi Ali, the page is on WP:PT/C, so I got rid of {{deletedpage}}, hope you don't mind! For some reason the big red 'protected page, follow guidelines' message isn't coming up when you edit it, but I logged onto my alt account and I can't edit, so it's transcluded properly - it just doesn't look like it! Thanks for offering to take care of my talkpage, too :) Cheers, – Riana ऋ 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I think our deletes crossed somewheres (my fault!). Catch ya later - hope breakfast went/goes well :) - Alison☺ 00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of 70.240.217.92

Thanks for blocking User:70.240.217.92. This user vandalized my talk page once. Amos Han Talk 00:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Alison, thank you for cleaning up some vandalism on my talk page today! Take care. Quartet 03:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably won't do any good. It was just vandalized while I was logged in. I've put in a request for semi protection for the time being. If you want to deleted you can though :) Quartet 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 Done :-) - Alison☺ 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Stellar. Thanks again. Quartet 03:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks so much for your congratulations. --Shirahadasha 04:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann

Thanks in blocking all those IPs vandalizing this article. Could you please protect the article for a few hours to stop this user from finding another IP to use? Thanks. Gdo01 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Gdo01 05:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 Done - was doing it as you were typing this :) - Alison☺ 05:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

CheriDiNovo vandal

I'm curious -- the most recent block of 58.10.167.112 which is the fourth carnation of this IP 58.10.167.* -- can't 58.10.167.* itself be blocked? —   ∴ Therefore  talk  :  06:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it can - with a range block. However, that'll take out 250+ IP addresses, which may be a little extreme & other folks are guaranteed to get caught in the 'collateral damage'. - Alison☺ 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Understandable -- and a search of user talk pages, admins archives, I see this person has been using many IP numbers and has been a problem for months. Too bad nothing can be done except for watching out for vandalism. Thanks for the feedback. —   ∴ Therefore  talk  :  07:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

We can proven that JDL is not a terrorist group, and the link provided is an expired link from the 80's which says it is a "right wing" extremist group - not terrorist. No one has been able to give any evidence that JDL is a terrorist group as assigned by the FBI. we are asking you to either unprotect the page or remove the part that says JDL is a terrorist group. eternalsleeper

  • I've no idea who you are, but I suspect this has something to do with the Shimon Tzabar article, which has been fully protected by another admin because of edit warring. I declined to unprotect it today on WP:RPP as I see no evidence of consensus on the article's talk page. I've no opinion nor interest in the article either way but those folks need to talk out their differences. If you wish, you could take the matter up with the blocking admin because I see no evidence of the revert war having ended - Alison☺ 07:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't know who Shimon Tzabar is. I am writing to you because you are the one who locked the page. JDL is not a terrorist organization and it should be removed ASAP because as it stands not the ones who are bias and against Jewish organizations are clearly winning. Wikipedia is not suppose to take sides without sources and that is happening with JDL. - eternalsleeper

User:220.253.54.246

Can he be indefinitely blocked? He is personally attacking me on his talk page and a sock puppet IHateMikeBeckham was just blocked indefinitely. - Mike Beckham 08:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He is using another IP to add the same stuff to Rove (TV series) User:220.253.44.17. - Mike Beckham 00:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a reasonable question?

Its a reasonable question? I was only playing around with wikipedia to see how quickly people reacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.44.17 (talk • contribs)

Permitted?

Is it okay for me to post an editorial on my user page? Lsi john 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd Revert.

I don't want to sound intruding, Alison, but why did you do this revert? What did that user say that was offensive? Have I missed something? Acalamari 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Same editor created a subpage under Natalie's account saying something similar. I strongly suspect the CheriDiNovo vandal & the nature of the comment suggests that - Alison☺ 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sorry; I didn't know. Acalamari 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bitchstar.svg

Thanks! No I don't know the history. I was really worried you'd be angry for me editing your user page without permission. :DWolfmankurd 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • LOL!! Not at all :) History is something like this; it was created by a vandal to show their anger at having been warned off. They posted it on someone's userpage whereupon Ryan, myself and some others adopted it as a 'badge of honour'. It already passed an IfD once. Read this and this. Thanks again! - Alison☺ 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Lmao, I thought the look might be part of it. And no problem. Wolfmankurd 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

RMS

Quack quack. This edit gives him away, if the IP and Croatian articles alone aren't enough. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Trumpetband

Check out the above users contribs, I'm impressed to say the least! I can't believe he's been here 10 days and he's already reverting vandalism, warning the vandals and welcoming new users!! Ryan Postlethwaite 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP on Mount Shasta

Hi Alison, I was just about to post the article Mount Shasta on RFPP when I noticed that someone else had already posted it there. You declined semi-protection with the statement "There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. -sorry", but I think you've missed the point.

Please look at the article's history, which shows a very determined IP vandal who has repeatedly removed two essential book references from these articles:

It is likely (almost certain!) that the vandal has some personal conflict with the authors of those books, which are the best currently published books about these mountains and this city, and MUST remain in those articles. This vandal uses many different IP addresses, but it is clearly a single person doing this and often leaving false, deceptive edit summaries. Examples of the vandal's edit summaries:

  • rm SPAM (will continue to remove)
  • rm SPAM irrelevant references
  • rm Self Promotion SPAM
  • rm :SPAM yes it is spam
  • rm irrelevant citation
  • rm vandalism

Since you have refused the requested semi-protection, can you please suggest how to deal with this particular problem? Both myself and User:Burntnickel have better uses for our time than reverting this same vandal several times a day. It appears that only semi-protection can prevent such a determined vandal using at least 5 different IPs.

Thanks in advance for taking a second look at this. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting indeed. What bothers me about this is not only are they constantly removing those book cites, but they are also sneakily removing URLs cited as evidence in some other editor's comments on the talk page. They obviously have some agenda or other that we are not privy to. Either way, I declined the Mount Shasta request because I felt there wasn't really enough persistent anon vandalism to warrant locking out other genuine anon editors. I can see from this that the particular editor is causing enough disruption, is uncommunicative and is persistent over enough time. I'll add semi-prot for a week in the hope that the nonsense will stop. I'm not endorsing any particular version here but would like that anon editor to give their justification on the talk page. I'll add a comment there myself in a minute. Note that on the other articles, semi-protection is simply not justified as there is not nearly enough disruption present - Alison☺ 23:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Alison. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 00:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Much gratitude.

I thank you very much for the assistance. It's sort of bizarre, but I've had more than one conflict with an IP or vindictive editor. I stick up for my views on an article issue, and a few IPs and newbies have taken my explanations of policy (usually citation with my article choices) as attacks and flipped out. I thank you. ThuranX 00:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much Alison!

Thanks for unprotecting my page and fixing the broken link on my user page. It is much appreciated. Thanks for all your contributions, as they are much appreciated. Thanks much again. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 06:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Backpack (software) is 37signals#Backpack ok?)

Hi. I just noticed that you've recently deleted the Backpack (software) article which I created because you considered it blatent advertising under Wikipedia's policies. There has been a lot of discussion on the talk page of the 37signals article (the company who make the programme) about the notability of articles about their programmes, especially Campfire (which I also created and have since merged with 37signals) and Backpack (software) which you deleted. I have merged all these articles with 37signals in the 37signals#Products section. I'm not against you deleting the article, but do you think that the products section on this article is more appropriate -- I have redirected Backpack (software) to 37signals#Backpack? --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 10:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Would you consider Basecamp (software) and Highrise (software) to be notable/too much like an advert?

RMS back again

Quacking like a duck, thanks. One Night In Hackney303 15:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. One Night In Hackney303 15:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Missed that one. Sorry! I'm sure there'll be more along soon - Alison☺ 05:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Alison,

This morning (San Francisco time), I was delighted to see my edit about police radio code appear on the 420 page. You approved it - thanks! It is a first for me. As a longtime reader but first time contributor, I 'half-understand' where to post and how to edit. I then made some changes to my profile, but when I went back to the 420 page, that edit was gone. Did I screw something up, or was the 420 page edited again this morning, removing mine?

Thanks for shedding any light, ~kc~ theaternearyou@hotmail.com

Regarding User:24.93.110.201

Repeated vandalism to Golf handicap. Final warning has been given, and spamming has continued. I Respectfully request another block on this IP address. Is there any way that we can get rid of all of the FRESHswing.com linkspammers in one fell swoop? Thanks, Rahzel 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll take a look now. And yes, URLs can appear in the banned list for all Wikis hosted here. It needs to be added to m:Spam blacklist and you'll need to request an administrator on Metawiki to do it (I'm not one!) - Alison☺ 05:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for a short while for linkspamming. They had their final warning and spammed anyway. I left a message on their talk page as to why this was wrong - Alison☺ 07:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request a permanant block on this IP address, not only for persisting with the spamming of Golf handicap, but for circumventing the m:Spam blacklist (which FRESHswing.com is now a part of). Thanks, Rahzel 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League

It is just wrong to protect the page the same way you did last time despite proof JDL is not a terror organization. This is not right at all. I suggest you do your own research into the matter and remove the 'militant' and 'terrorist' designation. eternalsleeper

  • Answered on the talk page. I've no interest in the article and there's no 'right' version of the article. All I was doing was responding to a request on WP:RPP and it's the toss of a coin as to which revision is protected. Note that you had a week in which to address the questions surrounding the last full protect, which you didn't do. Instead, you waited for the prot to expire, then started revert-warring again. Not good. Then when full prot was re-applied, you suggested there was some conspiracy and told me what I did was "wrong", even when I pointed out that VoABot archived your initial requests three times - Alison☺ 05:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Move protection of What Goes Around...Comes Around

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to put it, but I couldn't find another place to put it.

To my knowledge, that page has been moved more than twice. First of all, if you check the move log on that article, there are three times. But they have been moved back and forth multiple times. It was first "What Goes Around..." then to "What Goes Around...Comes Around" then to "What Goes Around.../...Comes Around Interlude" and then to "What Goes Around...Comes Around" again. The dispute of the title has been going on for over three months and we have not yet reached a settlement. See for yourself. I think it needs a move protection. The93owner 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • To be honest, I don't think it needs it right now. It's still being discussed on the talk page, I see, and that the ambiguity around the name seems to have cleared up a bit - Alison☺ 05:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we unprotect two articles?

Alison, how do you think, would it be reasonable to unprotect articles Glasnost Defence Foundation and Anna Politkovskaya? They are protected already for a long time. I would like to make a few changes connected mostly with developments of article List of journalists killed in Russia. I promise not to start RR warrring with regard to these articles. Thank you. Biophys 22:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Favour

Hi, do you mind taking a look at the thread User talk:WJBscribe#Why?. The editor in question is unhappy about a set of AfDs not going his/her way and my insistence on consensus before any merges take place to the articles given they were clear 'keeps'. He/she seems to be suggesting that I threatened them during the discussion. Would you mind taking a look and making sure I didn't say anything I shouldn't have? WjBscribe 05:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yep. Will do. And BTW - sorry for being revert-happy on your talk page earlier. I'd tried to revert but you got in before me! - Alison☺ 06:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    That's all right. Despite his username he was being fairly civil so there didn't seem to be any reason to remove his comments. Thank for keeping an eye on my pages though :-). WjBscribe 06:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • So I took a look. Note that the subject matter is something I'm not really familiar with nor did I see the AfD until now. From what I can see, the editor in question is annoyed that the AfD didn't go their way. Fair enough, I guess. However, I did see that 1) you entered dialog with them afterwards and tried to reason and 2) you offered compromise on the merge if consensus was achieved. They rejected this proposal by throwing your own words back at you [22]. I felt this was more than a little rude. How and ever, this comment on someone else's talk page tells me that they're quite annoyed about a lot of things right now and may well be 'triggery'. I don't see any 'threats' from you, other than a firm suggestion that they not do a merge without fresh consensus. To me, that doesn't seem unreasonable, esp. on the heels of a very recent AfD. I think you did the right thing to step back ... - Alison☺ 06:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, just wanted to check- I know nothing about the subject matter either and don't do much editing in WP:FICT areas. I just implemented the result of the AfDs. The merge may be the best option, but those who contributed in the AfDs didn't seem to think so by an overwhleming majority... I think there's got to be fresh discussion before Elaich does exactly what they failed to get consensus to do at the AfDs. WjBscribe 06:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Username Vios.

Is it just me or does User:I have puppets made from SOCKS (wink wink)., and User:(insert lame and corny username here) *sniffs* how gay. seem similar? They both seem to fix minor grammatical errors, but have a nasty name... --KzTalk• Contribs 11:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well this says it all.... --KzTalk• Contribs 11:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
And the excuse... --KzTalk• Contribs 11:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh geez. :/ What next? - Alison☺ 11:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (all blocked for username, BTW)
I'm a big fan of RBI, but that last username is priceless. – Riana ऋ 12:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Alison

If and when you have a moment, I need your help dealing with a fellow editor. Spacevalid took issue with an edit I made earlier today [23] and since then has, essentially, been wiki-stalking me---leaving a dozen messages on my talk page, and going through my list of recent edits to reverse several of the edits I've made in the last day or two [24]. I have tired of reverting his changes, leaving him messages, etc.

I am willing to admit that my speedy delete tag on the RoboImport article may have been mistaken---however, it was already speedied today as spam, so he is mistaken when he says otherwise. Beyond that, his edits are simply meddlesome and unconstructive. Somewhat needs to mediate before things get further out of hand. Thank you for your time and efforts.

Cheers! ---Charles 18:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, I'd like to defend myself here. Charles did indeed incorrectly place a speedy delete tag on an article I created. I don't know why he isn't willing to remove it as he admits he may have been mistaken, and speedy deletion is not a place for where you've been mistaken. After he added this tag I started looking at his edits and some of them have been quite poor. For instance, he placed a "fact tag" on potentially libelous materials [25] even though the template for that tag clearly says not to do this [26]. When I removed that material he then reverted me [27]. Apparently he cares more about who makes the edit than whether or not the edit is good.

I've put a lot of messages on his talk page and he kept deleting them. I think it's rather rude to just remove someone's messages without response, but I've given up on talking to Charles directly at this point.

Finally, yes, RoboImport was deleted saying that it was spam, but it wasn't spam then and it isn't spam now.

Hopefully you can act as a go-between myself and Charles, since he won't talk to me. Thanks. Spacevalid 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

offensive>

Alison, Thanks for your note. I did not use the word 'offensive', I would not say I am offended. I just do not have time to deal with obsessive users. I prefer to work on something. And as result I do not know how to deal with such behaviour. I see millions of things could be improved in wiki, but I do not share the idea I can go left and right deleting other's pages. In fact, have never done that and resent the attitude. One could classify it as 'offensive'. I prefer - distructive or not constructive. Am I off to feel that way? let me know, kosi User:Kosigrim April 27, 2007 (PCT)

PS. I encountered 6-7 cases to date of users who imagine being 'administrators', the last one is User:Tivedshambo...

removing user page(s)

Hello, Alison! Could you please help me to understand the proper method of going about removing the vandalism on my user page? I'd rather have the pages removed altogether, even if that means loosing my ability to edit. You recently edited my user page to remove a tag which I thought was satisfactory. I know litte regarding wikipedia policies, etc., and I am sure your decision is appropriate. However, would you please aid me and my pursuit in this regard? Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.145.238 (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

A while ago, you semiprotected Ann Althouse.... Could you take another look at that page?

Hi Alison,

A while ago, you semi-protected Ann Althouse. I am not sure why, there really hasn't been a lot of vandalism to that page made by anonymous users. (The vandalism has been low in frequency and performed by as many anonymous as logged in users.) At the time I requested an unprotect, but I think my unfamiliarity with Wiki meant I was filing it in the wrong place or something. That's neither here nor there.

Anyway, I am involved in a dispute with Simon Dodd regarding the content of that page. I have made a request for the Mediation Cabal to take a look at the page. In the meantime, Simon is threatening to ban my IP address from editing as can be seen on my talk page. I am not certain what power Simon has to do that, but it is of course intimidating.

On the Ann Althouse talk page I have asked Simon for a truce in which, while we wait for mediation, we both refrain from editing the page, and he refrain from blocking my IP address.

So I apologize. I literally have no idea how to report what I consider to be harassment or at the least a big misunderstanding with large consequences for this IP address and me. So while we wait for the mediation cabal to work, can you briefly take a look at the Althouse page and weigh in with a request to Simon to refrain from blocking my IP address?

And if you have the inclination, note the very large change he just made removing much of the changes from the past two months or so. As part of the truce I have unilaterally stopped from editing the page, I don't know if Simon will or not, but I have asked him to revert that last big change of his until the mediation cabal arrives on their horses! If you wanted to ask Simon to partake in the truce and/or ask him to restore his last change, I would appreciate that.

Thank you! Sorry to bug you. 71.39.78.68 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Thanks, Alison. All vandalism is disruptive, but this kind of thing (which you're sadly familiar with ;) really pisses me off. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Newington College

Hi, Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Silveriver Is it possible to get them blocked? DXRAW 23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • All users now blocked. Sockpuppet accounts have been indefblocked and IPs blocked for 48 hours. Can't really indefblock the anon editors but I've tagged all the pages as proven socks of Silveriver - Alison☺ 23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. DXRAW 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have another one for you. Sbrandons checkuser has confirmed it. DXRAW 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user requesting unblock

Hey Alison, Crickettragic (talk · contribs) is requesting an unblock. Just being the messenger. --Iamunknown 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that. They got caught in a revert war in which they were completely uncommunicative. Unblocked now. Thanks for talking them through it - Alison☺ 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ..... for getting embroiled in the Ranjit Fernando issue and for tracking down and sorting out that sock issue. Appreciate it :) - Alison☺ 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Crickettragic is the injured party although he is at least partly to blame. I can vouch for him being a solid good faith editor though. The behaviour of the other guy I have no time for. —Moondyne 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I feel bad about applying that short block but, unfortunately, he was out of control at the time. His total block was for like 90 minutes or so - Alison☺ 04:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI Rfa/NYScholar

This is my first time asking for arbitration, so not sure exactly what constitutes an interested party. In any case, since you recently engaged with the user in question I wanted to let you know that I have filed an Rfa regarding NYScholar [28]. Cheers! Notmyrealname 02:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I've had dealings with this editor regarding the article in question but he deleted the conversation from his talk page even when we were in the middle of discussing his revert-warring. See here. Shall I add myself as an involved party and make a statement? - Alison☺ 04:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea. Notmyrealname 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Allie!

Thank you so much for the beautiful poem, dear Allie :) You made me feel like a child... and please, if you really really wish to drop me a line, take your time, we're not in a hurry. Right now, I'm just happy that we met, and I'll cherish your gift with joy.
Needless to say, your page is on my watchlist now, so I'll be coming by and visit you often, if you don't mind. And I hope you feel comfortable to drop by my pink page as well!
I'll leave you to your work, dear Allie, we have plenty of time ahead of us, and much to talk about. Have a hug from your new friend, Phaedriel - 08:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Allie, just dropped by to say hello. I was dreaming of you last night. Really, it's true. It was nice, actually a bit amusing. See ya! 86.42.130.165 16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooooh - Alison☺ 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill

Dia duit, a Alison! Chonaic mé teachtaireacht sibh ar User talk:Phaedriel, agus bhi sé go hiontach fheicim dán Ní Dhomhnaill ar nas níl chonaic mé cheana é. Spéisiúil cuir sí Béarla ar an dán, innit? Sláinte! gaillimhConas tá tú? 10:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Gan dabht! Tá Nuala ceann de na filí is fearr in Éirinn inniu. Is féidir a anam a fheicint i ngach dán. *sigh* - go haoibheann!! :) - Alison☺ 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Alison, thanks for your reverts to my talk page and my user page! You're a wee star. *.Mmoneypenny 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem editor(s)

I was wondering if you could do me a favor and review the following accounts for sock/meat puppetry, trolling, and vandalism. I've been working on it myself, but since I have now become the target of racist comments, I'd like to pass this along to an impartial admin. Feel free to block/unblock/warn, etc any of these accounts - even if it's undoing any of my actions. Note that #2 was blocked only for his/her user name.

  1. User:207.144.59.134 (3RR and possible bad data)
  2. User:A young n***a from da street (indef blocked for username)
  3. User:A young nin*a from da street (indef blocked for trolling)
  4. User:MullinsLabsInc (possible puppet)

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklawton (talk • contribs)

No worries. I'm checking in today while on work/meal breaks (working at home is grand). I like your new user picture very much, though I liked the last one with the sneer better. Cheers, Rklawton 23:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's pretty obvious for a number of reasons that all the first three are socks of the same editor; same articles, same POV/nonsense, the "n***a" username fails WP:U regardless of what it stands for ("refer or allude to ... racism" - it's implied and that's enough), the third editor is a blatant sock of the second one anyway.
  • And as for the fourth, well whatever about the highly likely sock-puppetry of the previous three accounts and the highly similar edits as well as the probable impersonation, I have just indefblocked them (as I was typing this) for legal threats against User:Wahkeenah here. So that's that. Good call, I'd say - Alison☺ 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mullins, etc.

Thank you for your help. And if I may say, if we were to take that user's attitude as representative of the company he supposedly works for, he ought to sue himself for defamation. :) The one open question is about the IP address that started this nonsense, in the article Wicked Witch of the East, of all things. So that one might still bear watching. All I know for sure is that this tempest in a teapot wasted the time of at least 2 editors and 3 admins. What a nuisance. Thanks again. :) Wahkeenah 23:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 31 hours to give me a day off tomorrow so I could take my little girl to the zoo. I'll keep an eye on it, though. Add $25 to the casualty list (above), because that's what I paid to buy the sources to determine that the edits to the WWE article were bogus. The editor was probably betting on other editors not bothering. Too bad for him, I'm an OZ fan from way back, and perusing a couple of scholarly articles on OZ stuff were the highlight of my editing day. Rklawton 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Kudos. It's ironic you're leaving this zoo for awhile to go to another one. Those animals are much more docile... and more to the point, caged. :) Since you're an Oz maven, can you tell me if there is anything in the books about a red brick road? Wahkeenah 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • (ec) As the user in question has now contacted me requesting unblock and continuing with legal threats, I have taken up this matter with Mullins Inc. Regardless of the circumstances, this needs to be resolved properly and I hope to hear back from a representative of the company. - Alison☺ 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Inquiring minds want to know if the IP resolving to Fort Mill and the labs having offices in Aiken (same area code) 'mean' anything? I love a mystery (frustrated I can't flip to the last page, though) . Shenme 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Point is, this is serious stuff & the user has now taken to emailing me. I've asked them to desist until the issue is resolved and referred them to the Foundation for further info. Either way, an indefblock is the appropriate response here - Alison☺ 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone looking at this closely would see that the user came online strictly to rabble-rouse, and it's clear the problem is not with the company in question, it's with the specific user. To think this all started in the land of Oz. Wahkeenah 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
However, it's interesting that one of the IP address' first comments to me was "Who do you know in Charlotte?" Fort Mills is a suburb of Charlotte, and I thought that question odd, but now it kind of fits. But I don't know why he connected me with Charlotte, as I'm a midwesterner. Wahkeenah 01:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just filed a sock request to see if we might sort some of this out. Feel free to add to it if I've missed any of the good bits. Rklawton 01:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A look at my own talk page reveals some interesting weirdness, some of it even related to this case. :) One thing all of these I-didn't-call-them-sockpuppets :) have in common is being spelling challenged. The IP address accused me of being "naracistic". I don't know what that means, but it sounds kind of "liabless", if you ask me. :) Wahkeenah 01:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Much appreciated! =) --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 05:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a reminder anymore...

...I just went on and improvised for ya! :-) NikoSilver 12:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Whew, thanks! There's no way I would want images like that on my user page. They're way too low quality. How could anyone manage to blur a still-life and yet think it's worth posting? I bet they were taken with a cell phone. Ha! The impotence! I've got a real camera! Rklawton 12:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. I was shocked and horrified, really. The insult!! I'm sure you could produce a picture of much greater ... umm ... quality! *ahem* - Alison☺ 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't you hate it when editors post self-portraits on other users' pages? Wahkeenah 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL!!! Exactly :) - Alison ☺ 00:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(another) Thanks

for sprotecting Roaring Twenties : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) It was a mess over there - Alison☺ 21:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On protecting Ireland

I just saw your note on that entry. Lest it appear that I was attempting to somehow ensure protection for the article by posting it while you were patrolling that noticeboard, please be assured that was not my intent. Thanks! Dppowell 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: piss

Nah, I don't really care. John Reaves (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Another "Charlottan"

I see this guy hit you up too. [29] As usual, I have no clue what he's talking about. But this might be another candidate for "blockage". Wahkeenah 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A belated thanks

Thanks for restoring my user page. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Newington College

Because all the socks have been blocked can the Protection be removed? DXRAW 01:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done - it was just about up anyways - Alison ☺ 01:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice sig

I like your new sig :-). Bets on how much flak I'm going to get for this? WjBscribe 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! You're having a night of it, by the looks of things ... - Alison ☺ 03:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sig, BTW, was one of NikoSilver's specials :) - Alison ☺ 03:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and needless to say, AfD is not a vote, remember? - Alison ☺ 03:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I may have put that proposition rather to the test ;-). WjBscribe 03:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed! Should be fun :) - Alison ☺ 03:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

worldofbags

Alison,

Could you maybe commence with a discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldofbags instead of operating as a lone gunman. It is difficult enough tracking people down for discussion on each of their own personal pages. The article was relisted as you can see for more discussion not so you could slap the speedy deletion upon the article without talking to us first. --Jlcook 01:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but the article was tagged for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#A7, which is to say that its importance was not asserted. It was marked as such on the 23rd of April by User:MER-C. I note that User:Esrever marked it as AfD for similar reasons. As part of my admin duties, I evaluated the speedy deletion note, verified its applicability and deleted it along with the many others that I routinely deal with. I note that you went on to recreate the article no less than two further times (without the AfD tag - Esrever had to re-tag it) and each time, another administrator - not me - speedy deleted it. In fact, the first time it was re-deleted, you re-created it within 3 minutes whereupon the admin deleted it for the third time only minutes later. I'm reviewing the logs and the article right now. I note also that the AfD was ignored by yourself all that time until it had been deleted. Furthermore, I note that the whole article is extremely short and reads like a blatant advert (see WP:CSD#G11) with a tacit nod to its competitor, ebags.com. If you're unhappy with either mine or the other admin's decision, or User:Esrever's, you can obtain recourse through the Wikipedia:Deletion review process. Thanks - Alison ☺ 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I was curious to find out what "Worldofbags" was about, but it looks like it's been sacked. :) Wahkeenah 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Add www and .com either side and you can easily get a general idea :-). WjBscribe 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. And have a close examination of my comment, and there's a joke somewhere in there, trying to escape. :) Wahkeenah 03:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
<groan> WjBscribe 03:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk :) - Alison ☺ 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I went to that website. My favorite was the 1/N-Series of luggage. Each piece contains another piece that's about 1/3 smaller than its container. This could have gone on forever. I had to stop, or I would have missed my train of thought. :) Wahkeenah 03:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You seem to have got the impression, by the way, that I tagged it for speedy deletion. I did not. I merely responded to the CAT:CSD request, is all. I'm not being a 'lone gunman' here, by any means. There are at least two others here involved who seem to share my concerns - Alison ☺ 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am at a bit of a loss on how to put together this article then. As a reference for constructing it, I looked over more than a dozen articles written about other companies of varying sizes, articles i listed in discussion previous to this like Skyway Luggage, ebags.com boblbee XtremeMac I opted to keep it simple and neutral as possible discussing its business type, duration of incorporation, employees, logos, etc with some basics besides that, not as complex as the ebags wiki, but more informative than some of the others i mentioned. Those articles have been stable and existed for quite a long time.. This one continues to be marked for speedy deletion. I do not understand the process by which it is determined as not worthy. Yes i have read the guidelines. But what separates it? I would very much like to rework it so that it is more acceptable, but based on examples, i'm baffled.

I apologize for giving the impression that you were singling this out, but the process is extremely frustrating lately.

What did they say?

"As the user in question has now contacted me requesting unblock and continuing with legal threats, I have taken up this matter with Mullins Inc. Regardless of the circumstances, this needs to be resolved properly and I hope to hear back from a representative of the company. - Alison

Just wondering.

~~Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoesphJobs (talk • contribs)


That is what I thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoesphJobs (talk • contribs)

One thing all these characters have in common is being spelling-challenged. It's like their "calling card". Thank you, both, for your support. :) Wahkeenah 06:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: CSD AutoReason

Thanks a lot. I was so tired of having to do it manually every single time, so I wrote up this JS to do it for us. ^demon[omg plz] 06:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Shemale reverts

Just wanted to let you know it was I who reverted back to the page discussed on the "Nomination for deletion" page. I forgot to sign in this morning, so I'm not sure if you reverted to Ryan's because all that showed was my IP address? The page you reverted to contains information that has been discussed previously on the discussion page before and was removed due to POV and lack of sources. --Patrick80639 14:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Patrick. Yes, I figured it was you, from your previous edit. I reverted it because 1) and AfD is not for achieving consensus regarding article content 2) you can't infer that from the current discussion and 3) it's not concluded anyway. The older rev. you reverted too looks too POVvy and bloated in the first place. Sorry about my edit summary but I clicked "save" too fast! - Alison ☺ 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand. My main problem is the removal of the statement that the term is "usually derogatory". I've spent a great deal of time debating this on the discussion page, provided sources, and I understood the issue to be somewhat resolved. Now it's arbitrarily been removed. --Patrick80639 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

you need a life

you need to spend less time editing articles and preventing vandalism and get a life, and also cover up the clevage ( . ) ( . ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The blue inferno12 (talk • contribs)

Blipvert

Wow, thanks! Though, it's only for friends now. how about substing the smiley with a cleavage sketch? :-) NikoSilver 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Move vandalism

Allie, if you're online. Can you fix Irish Potato Famine, thanks 86.42.166.164 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done - thanks :). They also moved Ireland to Dylanland & had to fix that, too. *sigh* - Alison ☺ 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Just back from the the Dublin Bay Planning Project, and The Magic Carpet. Thanks for the help. You're luvly:) Mano86.42.161.215 00:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

212.88.34.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Yes that is the correct IP number, sorry I didn't write it in full. Thanks Natalie West 17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry to bother you. I chose you because your last edit came a few minutes ago and I take it that you are online. With my background being from the Balkans, I edit on many of the associated articles. As you are not from that region, it seems you can stand from a neutral angle. You need not worry because I am not calling for help of a political nature, I am merely requesting that you deal with a neusance. There is a site based on a footballer in the UK, Dado Pršo, and since the beginning of April, a certain IP-base has constantly erased his country of birth as being Yugoslavia. Long ago it was decided by the various communities that historical accuracy should take priority over modern issues as we cannot keep changing someones country of birth every time something in the world changes! I have warned the user on more than one occasion, I have only just now noticed this because I didn't know that the written message which I issued him/her some weeks ago was to the same person. The IP changes its last two sets of digits. So far we have had:

Only yesterday I had to enlist the help of another user just so I didn't break the three-revert rule. The user has not once communicated, and has arrogantly taken the liberty to make controversial changes willie-nillie. I believe that the IP address should be blocked from editing for a short time for the user to learn that this kind of behaviour is not appropriate here. But you are admin and so your decision is final and I will respect if whatever you decide. Sorry to call you into an ugly situation. Many thanks. Evlekis 17:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Ugh! Tricky problem :) I need a bit of time here as I'm going to be away for a few hours. I will look into it later today & see what I can do - Alison ☺ 17:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's no rush so to speak. I'm not reporting this user as one who is harmful or threatening, just a little over-enthusiastic and very annoying. I suppose he/she will do it again late tonight or tomorrow. In your own time. Best wishes. Evlekis 17:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I am just butting in, and I dont know how severe the problem is, but you can always consider a short term range block if proving an eminent problem. Just check first but you could block 83.131.0.0/16 for like 20 minutes just to get them to give up and go away. (not sure if that will help or not). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for semi-protecting my user page. Now I don't have to worry about my user page vandalism on my user page while I'm at Washington, DC. Could you also semi-protect my talk page with the protection length of 3 days as well to prevent vandalism as well? Amos Han Talk 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, add my talk page to your watchlist and revert vandalism on my talk page if you see one. Amos Han Talk 22:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok - will do, so :) - Alison ☺ 23:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RhinoRadar

Hi; I just finished going backwards through, and reverting, all of this user's edits. He obviously stuck in the one that you warned him about while I was doing that. I don't think he's an intentional vandal, I think he believes that he is improving things. Clearly, he is not, and both you and I have now warned him. I (or you) should administer a short block on his next inappropriate edit.--Anthony.bradbury 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I will keep a watch.--Anthony.bradbury 23:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jj0909jj. --Iamunknown 00:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte, North Carolina.

Alison, does the very recent revert-war on this article warrant semi-protection? I have the page watchlisted, but I've had to revert those edits twice today. It's getting annoying. One of the IPs has been blocked for a week, but the other one will be coming off it's blocked in the next couple of hours I think. Acalamari 23:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's a ludicrous amount of reverts. Same spammer, different IPs. Semi-protected due to linkspamming / revert warring - Alison ☺ 23:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that was much appreciated. I will leave the page in my watchlist for the time being, though. I'll see what happens when the semi-protection expires. Acalamari 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to figure why a mundane topic like Charlotte would get someone so riled, but there's no accounting for anything these days. Maybe there's some hallucinogen being spilled in the water from some laboratory in the area... Wahkeenah 23:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
An IP address, on the talk page, just "threatened" to re-edit the article page, but I don't see any edits. Presumably the semi-protect stopped him. If I recall correctly, the semi-protect only applies to the article. To semi-protect the talk page is another task. But I'm not arguing for protecting the talk page, as some dialogue on this is needed. Maybe (just maybe) the IP address truly doesn't "get it" about external link rules. Wahkeenah 23:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, there are still 12 links there. Surely that should be enough to more than satisfy the interest of any casual visitor to the page. Wahkeenah 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Suit combinations

I wonder if you could look at the dispute (I fear that's what it has become) I am having here? No rush and if you don't have time (it will take an hour or more) please don't bother. I am concerned about the following:

  • IMHO there is much OR and POV in this article (admittedly of a technical nature)
  • I have made several (many) well thought out and well intentioned edits which have been reverted several times despite Help:Reverting#Do and no attempt has been made to build on my edits ... I don't feel I am being treated as a serious editor.
  • another editor has been brought into the conversation (with quite interesting comments that I have no problems with) but I see no evidence for the invitation here ... is this a sockpuppet or are they having offline discussions that I cannot see?

I don't ask for any favours you understand; I want to improve my standard of contribution, but I am concerned with facing "opposition" rather than the "co-operation" I expect. Give me some of your good old Irish opinion and I will take it to heart. Thanks. Abtract 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Doesn't it give you a nice, warm glow when you can block a vandal for six months or permanently!--Anthony.bradbury 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fastest trigger finger on the frontier!

Remind you of anyone? Thanks for looking out for me! :) – Riana ऋ 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

The one nice thing about user page vandalism is that it gives me a chance to check out people's userpages. Yours is great, by the way. I really like the Marie Curie quote - it's a bit like how I often feel about WP, which I suppose may have been your point.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you blocked User:TECHNOBOT ?

I imagine you have a good reason, but the template you left on their talk page does not explain it to me. I do not see what is wrong with their name? Can you explain please? Personally this looks to me like WP:BITE, but I give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you can fill me in. Russeasby 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure. They were reported to WP:AIV for having an inappropriate username. Have a look at WP:U as, unfortunately, that username has 'bot' in it and the policy disallows that. It's reserved for bots only. I blocked their account but left autoblock and new account creation alone. I then added the {{usernameblock}} template to their talk page so they'll know what to do. They should just be able to log in and simply create a new account with a different name. Note that their edit history to-date is comprised of only three edits. - Alison ☺ 06:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind this is a new user, how are they to know that a name containing "BOT" is inappropriate? The template you left them with does not make that clear either. Sure they can create a new account, but a newbie who has no idea why their first account was blocked in the first place may not be so willing. If you simply told them that "BOT" was not allowed, then sure. But you left a extreamly generic template that gives them no real clue as to why they were blocked. And yes, I fully realize they have only made 3 edits, note I reverted one of them myself and left an appropriate note, warning and a welcome. Your block and generic warning will most likely ensure those are the only 3 edits they ever make. I think you seriously WP:BITE the newbie here and it would be more appropriate to at least give a decent explaination to why their username is not acceptable rather then a generic note which a newbie would probably not understand. Russeasby 06:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Alison gave you an explanation which, I am quite positive, every administrator who monitors WP:AIV would have given; it is standard practice. If you want to change something, I suggest you take it to the talk page of WP:U or to WP:AN. --Iamunknown 06:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
(ec - sorry!) I know, and I really don't like username blocks, esp. as they're almost always new editors. They will know that 'bot' is inappropriate because it appears in the MediaWiki screen as I blocked with usernameblock in the comment section. It's also on the template on the talk page in simple term and not the usual WP acronyms we all use. I don't always use boilerplate templates either but in this instance, the {{usernameblock}} one is pretty straightforward. You have a point, maybe, in that the usernameblock template is awfully generic and is used in this case as well as User:Homosexualdick and the charming User:Poopsoup whom I blocked recently for username. Maybe it's time to fork the template and make a 'friendlier' one? In all honesty, it was certainly not my intention to BITE and unfortunately, I basically did what any other admin would have done. Admin work, esp. AIV patrol, can be frenetic at times & I can easily block dozens of editors in a day. But I agree that username blocks have to be the most unfortunate - Alison ☺ 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Alison: to be honest I have no idea what you mean in that "it appears in the MediaWiki screen as I blocked with usernameblock in the comment section". Perhaps this causes the blockee to see a message which suggests to them why their username is inappropriate? I dont know and I admit ignorance here. Certainly though cases like User:Poopsoup and User:Homosexualdick are clear and anyone who created such names did so with intent to be offensive. This case is not so clear and I have my doubts that this user was trying to impersonate a BOT or intended anything ill in their username choice. As I said, I do not dispute the block given your response, but the reason given, especially to someone who ment no ill intent, is vague. I am an experienced editor and I couldnt figure it out, certainly a newbie wouldnt know. I do not mean to suggest you ment to bite, and yes perhaps a seperate template is in order for less obvious violations.
Iamunknown, I am not sure how to respond to you. A rather defensive response you made, I do not have the admin tools (nor do I ever want them, because then I would have to listen to people like me), suggesting I head to WP:U or WP:AN is unconstructive in the light of things. An admin is nominated and accepted in part due to their showing good judgement, but of course each of them are human as well and make mistakes. I was not trying to be a nasty or mean critic here, just kindly pointing out to someone that perhaps they overlooked something or clicked too fast. No one is infallible or perfect, and suggesting that any other admin would give the same response does not nessisarily make biting (intensional or not) suddenly okay. Part of being an admin involves having thick skin, which I am sure Alison must have and I hope she did not take offense to my comments, but for some reason, you did seem to take offense. Russeasby 07:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Don't worry - no offense taken. My skin's like elephant hide these days :) I think you have a fair point here about the {{usernameblock}} template and that it could possibly be made less BITEy. Maybe an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page might be a good start. I notice that Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings looks after that template so maybe those folks could help out here. I have no doubt that User:TECHNOBOT chose the name in good faith and wasn't aware of the policy, so maybe we could change the account creation text on MediaWiki to link to WP:U? Take a look at MediaWiki:Blockedtext to see what blocked account see. As an admin, I have access to editing MediaWiki pages but am not competent enough to change stuff there, esp. without mandate. There are a number of approaches we could take to fix this problem and I'm certainly willing to give a help out. Interested? - Alison ☺ 07:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I will take you up on your offer to help look over the templates and perhaps improve on them if possible. One possibility of course would be specialized templates rather then generic ones, for certain cases, but of course the problem there is getting people to use them, as templates go, so often if there is a generic catch all template, it tends to get used even if a better one exists (I myself am guilty of this as well). So the problem doesnt lie nessisarily so much in this templates, but perhaps templates in general, but, thats a bigger issue and I get ahead of myself there. Anyway, I have been looking for a new project to give some attension to so perhaps this is it. Later today I will familiarise myself better with the appropriate guidelines and existing templates and come back here and give my thoughts. Russeasby 14:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No offense was taken. I'd like to comment further to say that, while I maintain that an objection to a single admin doing her job is probably ineffective, I do agree with you and Alison that templating users is often not helpful. I am unsure, however, how to effectively scale personalised communication on a project such as Wikipedia with such a large scope. --Iamunknown 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agut. (Did I get that right?)

Thanks for removing that delightful message from my talk page, and for blocking the vandal. I was going to do it myself (remove, not block!) but I thought fixing the article was more urgent. It must be very handy to have rollback. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Chrislk02 (talk · contribs)

Hi, could you please ask User:Chrislk02 to stop deleting the userpages of just created abusive socks, its confusing me as to who has been tagged and blocked and he said to check the block log but its harder keep swapping between windows, he told me not to add it to Wikidefcon per WP:DENY and I didnt and know I ask him to do this for me to make it easier and hes ignoring, Retiono Virginian agreed with me on Chris's talk page so could you please ask him not to, thank you in advance.Tellyaddict 15:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd rather not, thanks. As someone who gets hit by sockvandals on an hourly basis I understand where you're coming from here, but I'm in agreement with Chris that WP:DENY applies here. Sorry. - Alison ☺ 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Overeager DumbBOT??

Alison, as a admin, can you check out the bot called DumbBOT? It removed the protection on Evolution of the horse. Now, maybe it was OK to do this, but this is the second time I have seen that bot remove a protection template in a manner that seemed a bit premature. (It also removed the virtually permanent protection on horse a while back and the vandalism started up immediately after...) My concern is that it is too quick to remove templates automatically without consideration for the individual cases that caused them to be put on in the first place. Thanks! Montanabw 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

Alison, I wonder if you could have a look at something for me (FYI - I did post this request on another admin's talk, just trying to get more eyes on it). Could you take a look at this. Over 100 userspace subpages seems to push the limit of what is acceptable. Many are being used for article building. Many others appear to be used for OR around his theories about Petrarch and a bible code (for example, see User:Doug Coldwell/Revealing the Code and User:Doug Coldwell/Coincidences relating to Petrarch). I appreciate your taking a minute to check this out and give me your impressions -- I simply am not sure whether this is acceptable, or if this is something for MfD. Thanks. -- Pastordavid 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That's so strange. You might want to run this by the folks over on WP:ANI or Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help for a look-over. I don't think it's disallowed or anything (see WP:USER where it mentions subpages and how they shouldn't really be used for your own favourite revision of a page). It's a bit weird but it's not in articlespace so there's isn't really a major problem. All IMHO, of course :) - Alison ☺ 18:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandals

Ahh..Ali can you please not tag the persistent vandal socks because as per the new deny policy, we dont want to motivate the vandals into creating more account and thats exactly what he is trying to do.Chrislk02 came up with that Idea...Thanks..--Cometstyles 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SupportAmfar

Hi, just wondering, why do you suspect this user is a sockpuppet of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Can you pmail me? - Alison ☺ 22:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hi Alison. You're super-active over at requests for page protection, so I thought I'd ask you to test out something for me in your monobook? 

importScript('User:Steel359/tag.js');

At the moment, it just alters the sidebar to make responding to people on WP:RFPP easier (it was supposed to do more than this, but I couldn't get it to work this evening and it's gone midnight now). If you like it, I'll finish it off and spam it around to other people, but if you don't like it, I won't bother. Either way, it's a win-win situation for me, so feel free to be honest and tell me it's shite. Cheers, – Steel 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Little more Worldofbags

So why does a company page for XtremeMac or Skyway Luggage get to stay but Worldofbags cannot. If I do not understand the rationale I am doomed to an angry P.O.V. and the same mistakes in the future. Its important to note that I am in no way attempting to get those articles removed, but as far as Notability goes, I'm not catching the reasons aside from arbitrary self imposed determinism. --Jlcook 15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I honestly don't know. If I was CSD patrolling, I'd be inclined to speedy delete the latter anyway, and probably the former (I work in that industry, as it happens). Saying it is "arbitrary self imposed determinism" is more than a little unfair here, I feel. Still, you do have recourse to an review/undelete process, as I've said above. That way you can get another few opinions on the matter. It's not like if you create it enough times, it'll eventually get to 'stick'. Maybe your WorldOfBags website just isn't notable, no matter which way you slice or dice it. It could be time to move onto something else of interest, maybe, as your edits over the last two months have been almost exclusively related to that article (with a brief foray into Colorado). If bags are your bag, why not focus on some of the other articles like Gucci or Louis Vuitton? - Alison ☺ 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

Not a problem. Bmg916SpeakSign 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for protecting Estonia. DLX 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from a previously banned school.

It seems you may recognize this IP address, but whoever was vandalizing wikipedia on this school IP address last month came back just a day after the ban was taken off, and vandalized 4 pages immediately.

Contributions from 206.245.186.213

User Talk Page for 206.245.186.213

If you can, find some kind of appropriate answer to this, as a month ban just wasn't enough it seems. It's sad how some people can ruin these privileges for innocent users. --Jervill 23:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


User:Ahering@cogeco.ca

Sounds good to me. I think this user has created the account early enough, and above all, has created the account in good faith. You can find the history if you would like too, still.--U.S.A. cubed 04:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Aherm

[30] What a coincidence- same timeframe and all... WjBscribe 07:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Whoa! Awesome :) I just got here 5 mins ago. Was in bed & can't sleep - it's midnight here. Thought I'd poke my nose in and check on backlog. Looks like we got to it on the exact second!! - Alison ☺ 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Neopets

Another collapse of opinions :) I've already protected it, just to find out that you declined. The reason I decided to protect it was because it had previously been protected several times, but due to the nature of this re-design, a wave of vandalism came when each time ended. Two edit warring IP's appear the least of the problem, if you'd look at all the vandalism today. I'm willing to unprotect the article if you can clarify your comment further. Michaelas10 08:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm okay with your decision :) I was wavering on it as it was but didn't want to necessarily lock out the anons when they were both cruising for a block anyway. Good call. - Alison ☺ 08:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

81.129.121.247

You mind blocking this guy since he is murdering an article. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 10:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Who??? I'm over clearing AIV right now, per your comment :) - Alison ☺ 10:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh - right. I got him :) 3am here and my head's a bit fuzzy - Alison ☺ 10:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You're on at 3 am? Geez... I'm feeling sleep and it's only 8 pm here.... --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 10:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
And I've only just got out of bed at 11am...! Isn't the world small these days?! The Rambling Man 10:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh! And hey - it's the weekend. Yayyy!!! ...... waitaminute - I have to work today. Meh! :) - Alison ☺ 10:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a shame, but as long as you're getting my big cat ready it'll all be worth it...! The Rambling Man 10:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If only you could see!! Big cat is going to be only awesome. Insanely great, in fact. Using it right now - yee-haw :) - Alison ☺ 10:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You're working on Saturdays? Unlucky... --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 10:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Some small matter of goofing off (wonder how?) and not getting enuf done. Shhhh!!! ;) - Alison ☺ 10:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for dealing with that pack of sockpuppets at St Laurence's College. Someguy1221 10:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) I'm away here now ... seeya! - Alison ☺ 10:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Someguy1221 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Goodbye

One day maybe. I will come back, yes I will come back; but until then, there must be no tears, no reliefs, no anexities. Just go forward in all your beliefs, and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mind. Retiono Virginian 11:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ali, I just wanted to clear up something regarding RV..I never actually opposed him(actually I was neutral) on the basis of his choice of userboxes but someone who has become pretty famous this days did and he asked me what can be done and I told him to take it to a higher power(than admins) because he did a similar thing in my RfA when he struck out an oppose vote which cost me dearly and I didn't want him to make the same mistake again (by striking off KM's vote), so I told him to take it to a Bureaucrat(which I know might have been the wrong decision) but it was a safer option. Iam not sure what happened but I don't think he should have retired.. --Cometstyles 13:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Our old friend

Quacking like a duck. The Paula Michaels article was created by another of his socks a couple of weeks ago, and deleted. Figured he'd be back at some point. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 22:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done - blocked indef. There were quite a few other 'tells' - Alison ☺ 23:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
there sure are!--Vintagekits 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I left another report on ANI about an IP he was using earlier as well that hasn't been blocked yet to the best of my knowledge, but figured someone with prior RMS knowledge would need to look at ArgyllRover. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RFPP

Feel free. There were several things I was going to add but didn't because I wasn't sure how useful it would be. – Steel 12:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I stole a copy. Thanks! Will let you know how I get on with hacking it. - Alison ☺ 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from the real home of Rugby

Thanks for the sprotect. Chances are that the unwelcome attention will dissipate over the next week or so, or maybe even when school starts on Monday.

And yup, another Irish wikipedian :O) and from the city on the Shannon to boot. I really should spend a bit more time on the Irish noticeboard, but I seem to have been drawn into more gnomish activities in the last few months. Anyway, thanks again. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hero of the wiki

The Hero of the Wiki award
I consider you to be a hero of this project, and hereby award you this hero award. The hard work you put into this project is always done with fairness and civility. These desirable personality traits are often wrongly taken for granted , and it is now my goal to make sure that they are rightfully commended. You always keep your cool, always keep things in perspective and always know the right thing to say to diffuse possibly explosive situations. It is for all these reasons and many many more that I believe you to be a hero of this project and deserving of this award. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again

Hello again Alison. This is User:Evlekis as you no doubt have the resources to check: I have difficulties in logging in but given that I have nothing to hide and do not abuse the system, I have no fear in revealing my IP address. You may recall some days ago that I drew your attention to Dado Pršo article; a neusance user was being a pain. It seemed for a while that this person dissappeared until earlier today - once again, User:83.131.131.255, or User 83.131+ appeared - the message has yet to get through. I beg of you to block the account for a good month, enough time for this person to see that this behaviour is unacceptable. I am doubtful that the written warnings have been received given that the IP changes with every log-in, and it is clear that no positive edit has been submitted by that address; it appears that the user has absolutely nothing else to contribute. I hope you can use your authority to stop him. 172.188.237.69 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (Evlekis)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison/Archive_9&oldid=1190104310"