Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:34, 7 April 2007

User:Alison/Title

User:Ali-oops/Bar Start a new talk topic.

Archives
August 2004 · August 2005 September 2005 · April 2006 April 2006 · July 2006 August 2006 · November 2006 November 2006 · December 2006 December 2006 · January 2007 January 2007 · February 2007 February 2007 · March 2007

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, 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 Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Isn't it just! I'm following up their day's edits and reverting some. Meh - vandals - Alison 03:50, 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)
  • Thanks. I actually left the Wiki last night so I wouldn't violate 3rr. ZueJay (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • (ec) Very wise :) As it happens, I ended up warning one of the editors for 3RR, they persisted and ended up being blocked by another admin - Alison 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know the situation, but if you were reverting vandalism, you won't get blocked for 3RR. Acalamari 23:52, 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)

• OMG!!! - Alison 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Lol, I wonder if your face looked anything like mine when you found that out... I vividly remember refusing to block User:Dingleberryman (or something like that) and then being told what it means... – Riana 05:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh gawdz. I am just so embarrassed!! - Alison 05:47, 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)

• Yay for free knowledge! – Riana 05:52, 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 , but this messed things up, so I settled for the 'out-link' form . 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; . I tend to do that by putting a colon in front of it like this ] .. 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)

• Oh, I'm so sorry! Shall I unblock him so you can go get him? :) Practice, practice- Alison 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh. :) Acalamari 23:33, 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)

• LOL!! I try ... :) - Alison 00:03, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue V - April 3, 2007 Monthly Challenge: Article News Three articles were promoted to Featured Article status this month: Homer's Phobia (2007-03-26), Trembling Before G-d (2007-03-15) and Andrew Van De Kamp (2007-03-30). Congratulations to Gran2 and Dev920 (twice!) respectively for all their hard work! Three new articles appeared on the Main Page as Did you know? items: Classification of transsexuals (2007-03-02), Steve Stanton (2007-03-08) and Melbourne Gay and Lesbian Chorus (2007-03-23), started by Lwollert, Yksin and MusicMen, respectively. DavidShankBone deserves kudos for his current drive to provide quality LGBT photos from the NYC area. One of the more recent photos is posted on Michael Musto, and you can check out the gallery on David's user page. Project News There is now the beginning of a list of core topics to possibly be included in the Misplaced Pages 1.0 release. Your suggestions are welcome; there may be many core LGBT topics still missing. We have a list of people categorized as LGBT whose articles need to be checked for reliable sourcing. This effort is necessary and urgent, to comply with Misplaced Pages's policy on living persons. Please take a few moments to source one article; if you've got time, do another. SatyrTN identified all the articles that were in subcategories of Category:LGBT but not yet tagged with the project's banner, about 1,400 articles. These have been completed, though SatyrBot will make periodic runs through the cats to find any new entries. Thanks Satyr! The number of articles within our project's spectrum (6,667 currently) should now be relatively stable and only grow with article creation. However, if you find a category that should be included, please let SatyrTN know so it can be included in the bots runs. Work is underway to improve the LGBT Portal. Please add any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles to the gallery here. Also if anyone would like to volunteer to help in maintaining the portal, please make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage. If you see any articles for deletion or any other deletion discussions related to LGBT topics, please remember to add them to the deletion sorting board. Thanks! Member News Our membership continues to expand. 22 new users have joined the WikiProject: Garik, Esrever, mlbedwell, Jet123, Welland R, Auriel, DaliJim, queerpeace, SUIT, Mentality, Nukleoptra, LeaHazel, lindleyle, Justin Eiler, Bylandl, Brent Calderwood, PC78, Gekedo, polymathematics, Coryarlo, Ziji, mcgarymi. Please make them feel welcome! To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.

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/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ziaur_Rahman_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 ? I think someone got a bit overzealous. Thanks. —dgies_c 06:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Done! Unprotected per WP:NOPRO - Alison 06:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Alison

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

• You need to quit checking then. That behaviour is kinda weird and stalkery - Alison 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Not quite. It's "cad a cheapann tú" ... but thanks for trying. Ná abair é! :) - Alison 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Furthermore, the use of the word "tusa" in that context translates as "what do you think yourself?". You rarely see "tú féin" in that context. Slán arís! - Alison 14:18, 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)

• Not at 7am I'm not. You done trolling now? - Alison 14:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Not yet Alison; So what about the IRA? You a member?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.166.184 (talk • contribs)
    • Nope. Never was, never will be a member of a terrorist organisation. I don't have "Tiocfaidh ár lá" on my userpage. And you? - Alison 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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? Michaelas10 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 Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages. 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)

• Ta. Replied! - Alison 18:44, 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)

• Thanks for the update. I'm a little clearer now as to what's going on - Alison 19:42, 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. :) gaillimh 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ceart go leor, so! Maith agat! - Alison 21:23, 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 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)

• Yes, of course it is! :) - Alison 22:28, 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)

• The problem with Cool cat 1 would have been the fact that a well-known contributor (and Commons admin) is Cool Cat (talk · contribs). Given that the account's only edit was vandalism, I can understand why Nick didn't see the need to let them create a new account... WjBscribe 06:02, 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)

• I'm sorry but I can't. As it's on the front page, WP:NOPRO applies as it's not normal to block the mainpage article. - Alison 03:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunate, as the article has been vandalized almost non-stop . Thanks for your help! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 04:18, 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)

• Charming. Fortunately, it's been already deleted by User:Gwernol - Alison 04:14, 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)

• Oh - wow! Thanks, Philippe :) - Alison 06:01, 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)

• Yeah, you should be able to use either for racist attacks - Alison 18:10, 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)

• Hi there. I just noticed your vandalism reverts - well done! :) You need to be an admin to block an address or group of addresses, school or otherwise. See here and Misplaced Pages:Schools FAQ. For general questions, you can find a list of places to ask questions at Misplaced Pages:Questions. Thanks, and welcome! - Alison 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Train 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 Train 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 Misplaced Pages! I have contributed more than a good amount of other members on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages" - 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: ) he should start a new discussion at Misplaced Pages: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)

• Created March 13 by User:Pumapayam; "This page is for bears who are wikipedians. The compliment their cubs". Never marked for CFD or speedy but deleted March 17 by User:ProveIt as WP:CSD#C1 (empty category) - Alison 17:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. It probably was never populated, then. — coelacan — 17:47, 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)

• Good decision. I note now that the category is empty and have seen your comments and WJBscribe's. Deleting now - Alison 02:28, 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)

• Certainly. I'd be delighted to. Note that I won't be as active over the weekend but I'll regularly drop in to check up on things - Alison 15:47, 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)

• No problem. It was a learning experience :) - Alison 15:48, 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 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)

• Thanks for that. Working on it ... - Alison 20:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning user:24.94.120.34

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

• Thanks. Blocked for WP:NPA. Not nice at all .... - Alison 20:55, 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)

• You're welcome :) - Alison 00:36, 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)

• Done. I see no issues there. I've replied on your talk page in detail - Alison 03:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. I can't help but note that you've done a very good job as an admin in this short time. Please keep up the good work! The Behnam 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Found the problem. The URL he wants to add is on the Wikimedia blacklist. Mystery solved! - Alison 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Wow! Thanks again. I'll make sure that we use that citation form from now on as well. And hopefully NeutralWriter will not be having problems from now on. The Behnam 05:58, 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)

• It's been like that since Sept '05. Something on MediaWiki was masking the problem, I'd say, and when that got fixed it showed up. User:Coelacan went ahead and fixed it! :) - Alison 10:47, 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)

• Feel free to change it back, by all means, if you think it improves the article :) - Alison 14:42, 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 for vandalism and linkspamming. I took the case and decided to warn you 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. You were reported again this morning. 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)

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: while Thanatosimi, a registered Misplaced Pages editor, removed his nonsense on Ahmose I here: . 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)

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 Misplaced Pages." 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)