Misplaced Pages

User talk:Alison: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:07, 11 November 2009 editAlison (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators47,244 edits →Robert K S: Sounds okay to me. TenPoundHammer?← Previous edit Revision as of 20:22, 11 November 2009 edit undoBielle (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,793 edits →Richmond High School: new sectionNext edit →
Line 80: Line 80:
Alison, I note that WQA says, at the top, that it is not useful for mediation of longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties, which, respectfully, might describe the case here. I'm more than game to participate in a mediation if that is an available alternative. However, I'm involved in a lot of other goings-on in RL at the moment. It might be more like after the holidays before I have the energy for this. Given the circumstances, I would happily agree to a total disengagement from all ''Jeopardy!'' (or, more broadly, trivia- and game show-related articles) until then if TenPoundHammer would agree to same. Actually, if TenPoundHammer wants to do things like add sources or contribute content, I wouldn't see that as a violation of the temporary pact, but no AfDs, speedies, or deletions of content from articles for the time being, please. ] (]) 06:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Alison, I note that WQA says, at the top, that it is not useful for mediation of longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties, which, respectfully, might describe the case here. I'm more than game to participate in a mediation if that is an available alternative. However, I'm involved in a lot of other goings-on in RL at the moment. It might be more like after the holidays before I have the energy for this. Given the circumstances, I would happily agree to a total disengagement from all ''Jeopardy!'' (or, more broadly, trivia- and game show-related articles) until then if TenPoundHammer would agree to same. Actually, if TenPoundHammer wants to do things like add sources or contribute content, I wouldn't see that as a violation of the temporary pact, but no AfDs, speedies, or deletions of content from articles for the time being, please. ] (]) 06:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
: That sounds like a pretty reasonable compromise, tho' it would need a point of contact to oversee it. TenPoundHammer - what do you think of this proposal? Mutual disengagement, while you get to add sources? It sounds like a quick way to end this (at least for now) and IMO, Robert is being quite gracious here - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) : That sounds like a pretty reasonable compromise, tho' it would need a point of contact to oversee it. TenPoundHammer - what do you think of this proposal? Mutual disengagement, while you get to add sources? It sounds like a quick way to end this (at least for now) and IMO, Robert is being quite gracious here - ] <sup>]</sup> 06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

If you have a moment in your day, could you take a look at the last few exchanges on the talk page, starting about with ] claim about a "BLP expert" he is being coy about naming who had "no issues" with including specific details about the victim? Those details are in Richmondian's reversion. ] reverted on BLP grounds back to . Your considered view would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:22, 11 November 2009

Archives
2004 Entire year  
2005 Jan • Jun Jul • Dec
2006 Jan • Jun Jul • Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan • Jun Jul • Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Entire year  
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep • Dec  
2015 Entire year  
2016 Entire year  
2017 Entire year  
2018 Entire year  
2019 Entire year  
2020 Entire year  
2021 Entire year  
2022 Entire year  
2023 Entire year  
2024 Entire year  


Thanks...for the protection of Jamie Lee Curtis

...for the protection of Jamie Lee Curtis; I tried a while back. I do not understand the repeated and seemingly consistent vandalism. This should keep it off my Watchlist for a bit; and I appreciate it. -- Mjquinn_id (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Garydubh (talk · contribs)

Hi, he's back as 83.71.105.150 (talk · contribs). Another open proxy? Best,  Sandstein  12:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also 66.199.237.22 (talk · contribs).  Sandstein  17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fortresslinux/Archive

Sorry, for the bother. I'm clueless as to how to re-open a closed SP Investigation. I watch List of Linux Distributions for no apparent reason, though I'm about to WP:TROUT myself and accuse myself of masochism. User:Fortresslinux is back as single-purpose account Krocht31, or is a meat puppet. The diffs, 1 November 2009 and 30 October 2009, are the same text as before. Since we reverted the new sock already (see Talk) and the sock re-added just now, I think that additional measures are needed to give the individual another WP:CLUE (note previous blocks have not yet provided such WP:CLUE). Thanks for pointing me in the right direction to clear this up again. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Jake has answered my question. Thanks. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Fáilte ar ais. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, did I get it wrong? Well, you know what I was trying to say, anyway. Welcome back. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I do, Robert, and thanks for the welcome back. Yes, you got it right :) Go raibh míle maith agat, a Roibéard ^_^ - Alison 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ISO magick pixie dust

Hello. Since you have had past dealing with Qwertgb (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected), could you take a gander at an unusual 'new' editor that has my sock-senses tingling?

Plural3776 (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

Except for the fact that this editor is exclusively tagging accounts suspected and proven to have been Qwertgb (something that has never been part of his modus operandi), the edits look more like some of the red herring socks of Bambifan101. I have been watching Plural3776 for several weeks in order to try and figure out what he or she is up to, and while I still have no clue as to what the editor is doing, I have no doubt that it is some subtle attempt at disruption to the project. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ok

I got that from the local paper, from her statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regisfugit (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't care where you got them from. Right now, they don't belong on Misplaced Pages, especially not the full name of the rape victim, who happens to be a minor. Same for the accused right now. Don't post them again - Alison 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I see your concerns about the victim- the suspects I feel is a differnet story- I think having double standards like this is not very transparent.Regisfugit (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't even think of posting the name of an underage sexual assault victim again. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have every concern for the victim here. Furthermore, our policies cover the issues with the minors that have been accused. We must have reliable sources for everything, especially if you are accusing children of criminal acts. See the problem yet? Not only that, but if it were seen later that the jury was prejudiced through the actions of Misplaced Pages, and it was deemed that the accused could not get a fair trial and were acquitted as a result, how would that be? When it comes to criminal matters, we need to be impeccable in what we do - Alison 00:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
but the ft hood suspect's name is in his article.... Richmondian (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

your comment

Misplaced Pages is not the news - that would be WikiNews. We have obligations that the presses don't have and futhermore, if there are legal issues around what's being added to that article, I can pretty-much guarantee that you and others will be nowhere to be found. Pseudonymous editing tends to make people more relaxed over what they write here, given their real name is not attached to their words. It's a heinous crime - no mistake - but we need to be very careful and deliberate over who we name and who we accuse of doing what, given the profile Misplaced Pages has on-line - Alison ❤ 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
alison, why are you on my page? and your talk page was set up so i couldn't respond. anyway you might take another gander at WP:NOTNEWS, you may not have read it in detail. for criminal acts, the better policy is WP:N/CA Richmondian (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondian (talk • contribs)

RE: I see what you did just there!!

Thanks. It's nice to see you here as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that

hi alison, sorry i goofed up unstriking that Jessica Liao comment, i didn't realize she was a banned person. i went to undo it after figuring it out but you beat me to it.

what do you want to know? i see you are a BLP cop of sorts? i don't think i've broken the rules??

Richmondian (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries about the Liao comments! Yeah, I'm kinda strong on BLP all right :) I just have a question about something but don't want to post it here - Alison 03:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Abortion Debate Template

There has been a major change to the abortion debate template without discussion or consensus. It was changed from a sidebar to a footer, and then removed from all the relevant articles. I can't revert the changes because I don't know enough about template construction. Can I get your help?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious user

Check this user out: . This user seems to fit the pattern of your friend (Grawp impersonating, imitating Rollback). Would you mind looking into this? Thanks, Triplestop x3 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, User:PirateSmackK - could be, all right. It looks like they're already blocked & just messing about with unblock messages. I'll protect the page in a minute - not sure if there's much more I can do - Alison 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert K S

Now this twit is putting words in my mouth. In an AFD, he said "TenPoundHammer's here because she was on Jeopardy! once, and TenPoundHammer has made it his mission to pare any Jeopardy!-related content from the encyclopedia. His edit record is becoming more and more littered with this nonsense." This false accusation is only more telling that Robert K S has some sort of vendetta against me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see how it plays out on ANI. You need more community eyes to look at it. I don't think it's blockworthy or anything, but he does need to chill a bit, IMO - just another WP:TROUT moment, is all - Alison 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Alison, it appears to me that you're taking TenPoundHammer's remarks at face value rather than actually looking at his edits. He's the one with the agenda, here. Robert K S (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've tried telling him that over a year ago, and he won't listen. For what it's worth, I did explain my removal on the talk page, but I bet he'll call me a deletionist with a vendetta against Jeopardy! or something to that effect. Not to mention his totally baseless accusation of me having an "agenda." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 04:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Filed a WQA on him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 05:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Good call. WQA is a better forum than ANI, especially for alleged long-term behavioral issues. I think both of you have valid points but right now you should both step away from the source of the friction; the Jeopary! articles - Alison 05:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alison, I note that WQA says, at the top, that it is not useful for mediation of longterm, ongoing conflicts between parties, which, respectfully, might describe the case here. I'm more than game to participate in a mediation if that is an available alternative. However, I'm involved in a lot of other goings-on in RL at the moment. It might be more like after the holidays before I have the energy for this. Given the circumstances, I would happily agree to a total disengagement from all Jeopardy! (or, more broadly, trivia- and game show-related articles) until then if TenPoundHammer would agree to same. Actually, if TenPoundHammer wants to do things like add sources or contribute content, I wouldn't see that as a violation of the temporary pact, but no AfDs, speedies, or deletions of content from articles for the time being, please. Robert K S (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty reasonable compromise, tho' it would need a point of contact to oversee it. TenPoundHammer - what do you think of this proposal? Mutual disengagement, while you get to add sources? It sounds like a quick way to end this (at least for now) and IMO, Robert is being quite gracious here - Alison 06:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Richmond High School

If you have a moment in your day, could you take a look at the last few exchanges on the talk page, starting about here with Richmondian's claim about a "BLP expert" he is being coy about naming who had "no issues" with including specific details about the victim? Those details are here in Richmondian's reversion. Black Kite reverted on BLP grounds back to this. Your considered view would be appreciated. Bielle (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)