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 18:18, 24 March 2014 editBluerasberry (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,702 edits →Block of Sportfan5000: reply...← Previous edit Revision as of 18:19, 24 March 2014 edit undoBluerasberry (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,702 edits →A cup of coffee for you!: new WikiLove messageTag: WikiLoveNext edit →
Line 152: Line 152:


Hello, in your unblock you noted WP:AGF. I'm curious if anything about my edits to date would imply bad faith. I'd like to correct anything I may be doing incorrectly. ] (]) 02:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Hello, in your unblock you noted WP:AGF. I'm curious if anything about my edits to date would imply bad faith. I'd like to correct anything I may be doing incorrectly. ] (]) 02:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

== A cup of coffee for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for acting as a peacekeeper. ]] 18:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 18:19, 24 March 2014

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  


Draft articles

Anyone else - feel free to work on these - Alison 21:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Boo!

Eek!! . Did I scare you? Hee Hee... Missed you big time! Ariel♥Gold 04:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

An Garda Síochána

Regarding An Garda Síochána, strictly speaking you are right but An Garda Síochána redirects to Garda Síochána, and also its more common to say The Garda Síochána rather than An Garda Síochána (except in RTE). Also since 99.9999% of Misplaced Pages readers have no knowledge of Irish grammar its more helpful to have a 'the' rather than an confusing 'An' which isn't an English word but a completely different Irish word! I'm not changing it in the main article only in links. Tx, Snappy (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dollymount, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dubliner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For all your hard work here on wikipedia, happy 10th anv! =3

Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ten years!

Happy tenth, Alison! Acalamari 10:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As has been said in the message above, happy tenth Wiki-anniversary, Alison! I would also estimate that it's been around seven years since we first met here. I'm glad you're still editing and am even happier that we're still friends. :) Best. Acalamari 10:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Dear Alison,

Congratulations on achieving 10 years of diligent service in support of our encyclopaedia. Here's to the next 10 years!

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Black Sabbath fan sock

Hi Alison. Can you take a look at this? This comment and the acct's edits struck me as suspicious. I reported a few of these Black Sabbath fan socks to B.Sadowski a while back, but he doesn't seem to be around much. INeverCry 03:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This guy's amassing a pretty good sock collection. He could've picked a better band though. INeverCry 06:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Allie,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Misplaced Pages project for ten years or more. Well done :)

Best regards, — Scott • talk 12:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Being nosy

So I was looking at the source of your snazzy user page - as one does - and noticed that you've set up colors in the CSS using subpages. Smart technique. I hadn't thought of that, but into the box of tricks it goes. — Scott • talk 11:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove my work?

Why did you remove my work at Paul Levinson? And why did you use the edit summary "Largely unreliably sourced"? The information I added is sourced by two of Paul Levinson's books. There are at least half-a-dozen Levinson sources used in the article, why are the two books that I used unreliable? RBlackmore69 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail

--28bytes (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback notice

Hello, Alison. You have new messages at Barek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Commons/pt.wiki sockmaster active here

Hi Allie. Can you have a look at and ? I don't know if User:Clécio Brito does anything bad here, but I did notice atleast 5 of their socks in the history of Carmen Miranda, a favorite focus for this sockmaster. I just like to make CUs here aware of cross-wiki activity. Take care. INeverCry 01:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Amazon Eve

How is an article that she wrote (that includes both her name and her picture) and a documentary where she (face is unblurred and her name is given) discuses it in detail considered "unreliable"?--Craigboy (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • For an entire myriad of reasons, and I've gone into it in detail on AN/I. WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:OR - just for starters. We're not here to perform original research, using flimsy sources (and they are), on someone biography, where that information could be seriously damaging. There is no reliable source which puts all those pieces together - and we'd need multiple, strong ones. And as an aside, "outing" LGBTI folks on Misplaced Pages (or anywhere else) is pretty heinous unless those people are clearly out already. And this one is not, whichever way you choose to slice-and-dice-it - Alison 03:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
How are these sources flimsy? Please don't just relink me to the page on reliable sources because I have read it many times. WP:BLP is not applicable because in those sources she bluntly states she is transgender. I am not 'outing' anyone, I don't think you can be considered in the closet if you've publicly discussed being transgender in magazines and film.--Craigboy (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Compare faces? They have the same name. Do you need me to find a source where she reads off her Social Security number? --Craigboy (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's still absolutely unacceptable. WP:SYNTH (what you're also doing) covers the whole concept of having two sets of data, and conflating them to make a third point; "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". That's not even going there re. WP:BLP and WP:RS. As an aside, there's something decidedly unpleasant about someone editing using a pseudonym while making highly controversial and potentially damaging edits relating to an identified public person, particularly in the face of complaints from a representative. Would you do that if you edited under your RL name, as I and many others do? - Alison 22:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not WP:SYNTH because she explicitly states she is trangender in both sources. Can you please elaborate how these are not reliable sources? Thank you for continuing to assume good faith. --Craigboy (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Since Demiurge didn't do it

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't me! I didn't do it!
What?
Oh, I've been cutting back on my use of templated notifications - apparently some people find them insulting. You don't need to be quite so hair-trigger to get in first, John. Not like I can notify Ali before I mention her, that would be silly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A mention

Hey Ali, how's tricks? As you know, there's a thread over at WP:ANI where some guy is described as being involved with a site that made fun of murdered children. Just to provide a little context for the doubtless terribly dramatic discussion that will follow, I mentioned another website that does so, and your (past?) involvement with that website. So, not that it's needed, but this is just to let you know you were mentioned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy criteria/personal info of minors

Hi Allie. I hope you don't mind my asking you for advice. Yesterday I came across a userpage put up by a 15 year old boy giving his full name, birthdate, location, school, and the full names of several other minors. See User_talk:JamesBWatson#User:Nathan_James_Taylor. I see these kinds of userpages, and even pages in mainspace, relatively often, where a minor puts up personal info of themselves/others that isn't a good idea or really a safe thing to be doing. JamesBWatson has suggested proposing a speedy deletion criteria that would address pages like this directly, so that they can be attended to/deleted as quickly as possible by an admin. I would think a new G14/15 criteria, something close to G10, that blanks the page and notifies the user/creator of the danger of posting such personal info, would be what's needed in cases like this. What do you think of this idea, and are there any particular fellow admins you know of who'd be good to talk to regarding advice/suggestions/help with such a proposal? Thanks for your time. INeverCry 19:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, then it would be logged as G14 and someone with viewdeleted could go around hunting for those pages... best to send it right to OS> --Rschen7754 19:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
A good point. But couldn't oversighters regularly monitor pages deleted via G14 and suppress them once they're deleted? We have a lot of admins and only a small number of oversighters, so admins could probably get to these G14 pages quicker and get them deleted quicker. It would also probably be easier/simpler for regular users patrolling new pages to tag a page for G14 than to report it to oversighters. INeverCry 19:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, we have a lot of new page patrollers who are usually familiar with speedy deletion criteria, who may not be familiar with oversight or what needs to be reported and how to do so. G14 would perhaps be a more sure way of getting pages like this attended to/deleted/suppressed. INeverCry 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have on one occasion had a request for suppression of personal information on the userpage of a barely 13-year-old declined on the basis that, IIRC, "they're 13 and they seem fairly sensible". (It was not Alison who declined it.) 15 year olds are that little bit older, so there is a big grey area here (though a minor naming other minors as well is alarming to say the least).
Rschen makes a very good point, and TBH I don't have total faith in a productive overlap between new page patrollers that are too inexperienced to know how to contact the oversight team, and the oversight team (who are quite busy) subsequently monitoring a category that gets filled up by such inexperienced new page patrollers. Based on extensive experience, I do have confidence in the oversight team dealing with material that's emailed to them, so I always suggest doing so in any cases that cause concern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it probably isn't viable to have a speedy criteria like this. It's a catch 22: you want to find these pages and get them hidden/suppressed to protect these kids, but drawing more attention to these pages is problematic too. If only everything was as easy to deal with as spam! INeverCry 21:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

76.105.96.92 or 71.59.58.63

I noticed you gave some blocks and warnings to 76.105.96.92 and 71.59.58.63.

This user is still creating multiple RfMs under the different ips with word-for-word rationales such as this one from 71 compared with this one from 76.

The rationales given for some of these RMs are directly contradictory with others (Use the legal case name/don't use the legal case name) so I think it's a lot of WP:POINT.

I don't know if they discussed their reasons with you for spreading their contributions around after their block, but I figured you'd know more about what to do (if anything) than me. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And it might not even be that big a problem except for cases like this one where they nominate as 76, and then make arguments in defense as 71. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Block of Sportfan5000

I see you indefinitely blocked Sportfan5000 as being a sock of BenjiBoi. But I looked at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi/Archive and I see no mention of an investigation of Sportsfan5000 or that account being checked. I'd think this information would be logged in before an indefinite block was handed out. I don't have Checkuser information at my disposal, I was just very surprised to find this user getting an indefinite block. Liz 00:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Liz. Per policy, not all Checkuser investigations are carried out via SPI requests. It's common practice and, as in this case, if a checkuser receives strong, credible evidence that an editor is a sock of a banned editor, they can and will run a check. So, many but not all checks go through SPI and if you check the list of confirmed socks of Benjiboi, many of them do not have corresponding SPI cases. And in this case, Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs) is very  Confirmed as being Benjiboi, and I fully welcome any other Checkuser to double-check my work here - Alison 00:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Alison. I wasn't questioning your ability, I was just not aware that some Checkuser investigations are private and undocumented. This doesn't seem like a very transparent policy but it's not a question about you, it's about how Checkuser operates. I don't understand why this information would be kept secret.
On a somewhat related note, I've been meaning to ask, how do you balance being a checkuser, oversighter and administrator? Do you concentrate on one role at a time or juggle them? It seems like a lot of different roles to have although I know there are several other editors who do all three. Liz 01:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Liz, Alison documented her checkuser findings in both the block log and in her block message at User talk:Sportfan5000. Could you clarify what information you believe is being kept secret here? MastCell  03:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I expected to see documentation at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Benjiboi/Archive. I was anticipating this useraccount to be listed on that page with a date and the name of anyone who could vouch for the review. I do not know how these things work but without that much documentation, my wiki-instinct is to perceive that some protocol about transparency is being transgressed. If this is not commonly done then I would not propose starting something needless or unorthodox. I know nothing about this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this about a month or so ago. Notice somewhere near the bottom of the page Sportfan 1234 and Sportsfan5000? Note the extra "s" on the latter. Might all 3 accounts be related?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC). Oh, I made a mistake. That is Sportsfan5000, who was also a puppet according to drmies, Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

  • BTW, there's a deletion discussion (specifically, Fox Attacks) that I'm half-tempted to do a non-admin closure on (as there seems to be a consensus to keep). The only problem is, one of the major arguments to keep was made by Sportfan5000. Should I ignore the argument because it was made by someone who wasn't supposed to edit? Or should I close as keep anyway? ChromaNebula (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick question

Hello, in your unblock you noted WP:AGF. I'm curious if anything about my edits to date would imply bad faith. I'd like to correct anything I may be doing incorrectly. MlaneNYIT (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for acting as a peacekeeper. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)