Misplaced Pages

		The Original Barnstar
		A well-deserved barnstar for staying up late and protecting Misplaced Pages. :) Mahanga 16:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excellent work. --Alabamaboy 16:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye. And, in case you missed it, Jimbo's comment on the protection of HD DVD . WjBscribe 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

dd form 214 revisited and re-edited

Alison

The editing of DD Form 214 has happened again. He added a link to a pdf with company logo and phone #. Can you correct it.

Thanks

Steve Jones —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveljones (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

 Done - reverted and warned against spamming. It's the same guy back again - Alison ☺ 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments, you dont know how much they mean to me! Best of luck to you too, I think I'll like my new account! Best regards, Tellyaddict 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• No problem. Look forward to seeing you around again :) - Alison ☺ 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Housekeeping issue on block of 207.157.220.40

Hi Alison, I was doing some RC work and I saw this diff regardinga block of a school IP. The text of the block message indicates a one week block, while the text of the edit summary indicates a one month block. This is one of those shared IPs that seems to be more trouble than good, so block it as long as you want. I mainly wanted to let you know about the difference between the edit summary & the text of the talk page message. --Ssbohio 18:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note! I meant for a 1-week block, which they got and which their block message states. However, my edit summary got auto-filled and I hit return just that little bit too fast. Ooops :) - Alison ☺ 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable call on an IPvandal

Re: 199.216.98.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has made four, not three, edits to Misplaced Pages today, and eight since the 27 April block expired -- all of them vandalizing. I did not leave a fresh final warning on this user's talk page after his or her previous block expired because it has been my experience that each final block negates all final blocks preceding it. ("How come you gave him a final warning when he already has a final warning? You should've just reported him, etc.") Out of this IPvandal's 101 edits, I have determined, based on a random sampling, that approximately 0 of them have been constructive.

It is more likely that the sun will explode this afternoon than that this user will turn out to have deserved the benefit of the doubt. If you want to go letter-of-the-law on this, there are a grand total of five warnings on the user's talk page (including mine), which explicitly state that the user will be blocked without further warning if disruptive edits continue. These warnings date back to last October.

All I ask is that a long-term (semi-permanent is too much to hope for) block on anonymous editing from the IP address be imposed. Is this possible, or will the vandal be allowed to continue wasting our time into the forseeable future on slow days at his or her public works department office in scenic Alberta? --Dynaflow 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here's my take on it. The address is a shared IP and, while their contributions have been abyssmal to-date, I can't just block them because of something they may do. At the very least, they deserve a final warning here. I don't want to give a confirmed shared IP a long-term block without a little due process here. It's not a simple AIV case and, for that reason, you might want to bring it to WP:ANI and state that the AIV report was turned down by myself. That way, other admins will get a look-in and decide accordingly. - Alison ☺ 19:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Josh Hancock

Can you take a look at this before it gets complicated and let me know what you think? It pertains to box colors for a now deceased MLB baseball player. I've asked another editor to engage in dialogue over it, but he seems more interested in a revert war. Given the strong feeling of De ja vu, I thought I'd seek a 2nd opion before the thread gets long and boring. Rklawton 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's starting to get nasty and personal with one particular editor feeling victimised having previously been revert-warring. I've waded in and tried to mediate but don't fancy my chances. We'll see what happens. I have no experience of baseball whatsoever, so this should be interesting - Alison ☺ 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My tag.js

Two quick questions before I consider this a job well done. Would it be helpful if every WP:RFPP response asked for an (optional) extra comment (as opposed to just 'declined' and 'note')? And would it be felpful if every article protection tag button asked for an expiry? – Steel 20:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
(P.S. Thanks for helping. Really)

• Ummm. I think it's just great right now. I just fixed a minor typo in the edit summary of 'note', is all. One thing - for consistency, it's probably best to remove the period just after the {{RFPP}} as it's on some and not on others. A space instead would allow folks to just tidily add their sig. Oh, and a space after the edit summary would make it a weency bit easier to augment it with our own message. Hey - good job on the whole script. I use nothing else these days & I find it hard to remember which template for what. And as for the expiry date nonsense ... well, it's a godsend! - Alison ☺ 21:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, after wrestling with the "Full (other)" and "Semi (other)" tags for a while, I think that's everything all working now. I duplicated it to User:Steel359/protection.js which will be the 'stable' version (with a more descriptive name) - doesn't really matter which one you use. I'm glad it has come in useful to someone other than me. – Steel 23:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's excellent! I'll switch to the new name now. Start your spamming engines :) - Alison ☺ 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think I'll pounce on people I see editing WP:RFPP. – Steel 00:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! - Alison ☺ 00:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing my messup with the autoblocker and the such. The good news is I jsut got my internet set up at my new apartment so I will be able to fix things a litle better now! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to step on your toes or anything, just that it sounded kinda urgent & I noticed you weren't about :) - Alison ☺ 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Alison, thank you for taking time to respond. I observe the tendentious editing frequently and across multiple articles. A series of edits will be made by one (or several editors) and Smee comes back and simply reverts the entire lot, and then re-edits back in what he wants in. Often this results in spelling errors (and other) being re-inserted.

He never abides by WP:BRD and routinely reverts with edit comments like restoring highly relevant cited sources and then moves on to another article, and ignores any attempts by other editors at discussion. Only when two or more editors force him, via 3RR, does he enter discussion, and often that too is only a single comment material is highly relevant and cited and then reverts again. If overruled, he waits several days and then comes back to revert his version.

It's weariesome.

The big difference in this case, from a month ago, I saw the offense, I reported it, and I'm done with it. I will no longer engage Smee on the edit warring and reverting level where he plays.

If wiki wants to pursue a warning, fine.. if not, thats fine too.

Thanks again. Peace in God. Lsi john 03:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If I must....

But can I get rid of his trolling when he's been blocked? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• My sock-o-meter has pinged into the red as this guy is making identical edits to a previous anon, far as I can see. Best off leaving the talk page comments be until it's resolved. I don't know enough of the history here to make a definitive call - Alison ☺ 05:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yamla and Tyrenius do. Basically any new account or IP that turns up on that page is likely to be Chadbryant. If you check this edit the IP changed the category, and much earlier the IP made this edit saying "Hi, Dink!". That on its own doesn't mean much, but you need to delve into the whole Chadbryant situation to know he had a constant thorn in his side using many many sockpuppets. The most recent example is on the Mike Knox article where they were going at it, with one adding a BLP violation about Chadbryant and the other removing it, see here. The diff where he used the "Dink" name to his adversary has since been oversighted, but you can see the aftermath on his talk page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dink. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Mel Etitis/Chadbryant vandals might help as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Job done. Thanks for being patient with me. I needed to follow through properly - Alison ☺ 06:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)`

I don't mind being patient, as it's always better to check your facts than rush in and get it completely wrong, just ask Betacommand ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I would have noticed myself, had I not been having some dinner. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses. :) Special tonight is Peking Duck - enjoy ... - Alison ☺ 23:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair that's the same IP he was using before, so really you should have blocked it yesterday ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, picky picky =:-) - Alison ☺ 23:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for tidying up my article

Thanks for tidying up my Oxygen_Enhancement_Ratio article. I hope to make it more dteailed as I get more time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuclearj (talk • contribs) 07:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

WP:RFPP on WP:BAN

Replied there, with diffs of the deletion/restoration/deletion/restoration since unprotection. I realize this isn't all taking place within a 24-hour span, but it shouldn't be taking place at all. Let the MFD reach a conclusion, and then have the policy page abide by that conclusion, whatever it is, but let's not have the deletions taking place while the MFD's still running. -- Ben /_HIST 07:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. I see your reasoning okay, but it's still not justified. Not with the number of reversions that's occurred and the recovery times. Protection policy is still not meant to be applied in that manner. This has come up on RPP a number of times now and has been rejected each time. - Alison ☺ 07:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mount Shasta

Hi Alison, please visit Talk:Mount Shasta. The anon-IP-hopping reference-deleter has finally decided to state his case on the talk page, and an extensive discussion has ensued. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for that, it gets on my nerves when Admins believe that the rules dont apply to them. Gherkin30 13:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you

I was just looking at that. RMS quacking like a duck. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Editor reverted to Robert's exact version, along with the POV quotes. Too obvious. I'd actually spotted that edit and the bot revert but had waited for the next move. I didn't have to wait long - Alison ☺ 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've just put an NPOV tag on Adams for now, as there's still slight disagreement over how his "alleged" IRA membership should be presented so I don't want to rush into restoring it yet. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Don't rush into reverting it! Just bring it up on the talk page and get Stu' and the others to agree to whatever you guys are agreed on - Alison ☺ 17:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The protected edit request template could do with being removed now, I'd do it myself but I don't think the correct procedure is just to remove it. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done! :) - Alison ☺ 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

After seeing this, that article makes much more sense now! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. Look who prot'd the template ;) Have to say, the imagery in that vandalism kinda tickled me a bit. Something about Mitchell McG having a go at wee Gerry with a lump hammer in the opulent offices of Stormont while they're all sitting around sipping tea or whatever they do there .... - Alison ☺ 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I never got to see it till now, as I checked the previous edits when the editor started inserting nonsense on SF. And he had the temerity to stop after his final warning as well! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I may have spoken too soon.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Nathan {disam)

Thanks for removing obscene vandalism at Nathan (disambiguation), presumably following the work of the editor whom you blocked. Unfortunately you left the preceding edit which was also vandalism; it's always worth checking the history on pages like this. Best wishes! - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oops! Sorry about that. I was too busy hunting down that other editor's blatant vandalism and missed that bit. Thanks :) - Alison ☺ 22:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Nenyedi

I apologize if my opinion was illrelevent to the matter of being an administrator, or trivial, and I've voiced my opinion, and won't repeat it again.--U.S.A. cubed 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pardon? Are you miffed with me because I questioned your statement re. AIV? Why were you being so defensive over there? I cut the conversation short at that point because I detected your annoyance and didn't want to start a conflict in some guy's RfA ... - Alison ☺ 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I apologize of that aswell. I was refering to this statement of yours: " "it's not a conversation for here". And that meant that I did carry a conversation I shouldn't have, and I apologize.--U.S.A. cubed 00:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! The "it's not a conversation for here" comment was not specifically directed at you, rather it was meant for myself. Make sense? - Alison ☺ 00:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense, and I just wanted to assure you that I was not annoyed, and thank you truley for your consideration.--U.S.A. cubed 00:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) - Alison ☺ 00:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon?

Allie, I'm not quite sure what your last comment means. But if it was a comment in relation to my suggestion to the last editor of Humping, which both you and Ryan appear to have picked up on immediately (why?) then my suggestion was in fact a wholly serious one. I am medically qualified, with a lot of psychiatric experience, and in my opinion that user needs help.--Anthony.bradbury 00:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of which way you interpret their actions, they certainly have issues. There's no question about that. When it comes to sophomoric vandalism like that, you have to wonder what thought process actually strings imagery like that together. Re. imagery, I once worked with the Irish Customs on a kidporn case & I had to ... ummm ... break into a computer which they suspected contained illegal images. It did & I'll not forget it too soon :( - Alison ☺ 01:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion to seek medical advice was not a casual comment; I meant it. I suspect that the editor in question will not do so, even if s/he sees it. There are many, many disturbed people in the world, and while I do my best to help them, I can only stretch so far.--Anthony.bradbury 01:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to adopt an attitude of RBI, though, as there's so much of that here. Either that, or go off the deep-end from stress and frustration. I barely even saw that editor's commentary, other than to tag them as yet another penis vandal doing their best to shock. Maybe I'm getting numbed to it all ... - Alison ☺ 03:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Alison, I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar in apprechiation of your excellent vandal-fighting. Keep it up! Mystytopia (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wow! Thank you :) Not sure why I got that ... but thanks! - Alison ☺ 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Crazy

I am going to assume that that edit was meant for User:Ed. I hope.--Anthony.bradbury 01:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup! - Alison ☺ 01:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking those IPs that were reverting Concordia College & University. The best ways of handling these situations aren't always clear at first. --orlady 01:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Whittingham

No problem, feel free to go ahead and semi if you would like. It looks to me like the edits have petered off over the last few hours (nothing for 7 hours when I declined), so it seems to me that no protection is needed. I am interested in what your edit summary "stepped on deskana's protect" means though, since Deskana never protected that page. Could you explain? Prodego 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• My autofill buffer kindly placed that there for me before I had time to catch it. I was too busy rolling back my changes. Oops! I felt bad about that particular article as the editor who requested it had desperately tried to protect the page themselves (with the template - *sigh*) only to have themselves mocked by the vandals. They kinda needed a break & their frustration was showing ... - Alison ☺ 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your comments

Thank you for your comments, I understand that anyone can post warnings however the user in question implied that he would block me, which he can not do, besides the fact that the original comment was not a personal attack at all, and as User:Theresa Knott has confirmed there is no grounds for a block, so i think it is safe to say that the whole issue was just inappropriately escalated by Gherkin30.

thanks for your understanding!

(Anna Vida 05:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

• I have to agree with your analysis there, unfortunately. While your rant to Jimbo was definitely a rant, it was probably in the correct place :) Gherkin30 should not have said what he did as it only inflamed the situation and as a new editor, you're perfectly welcome here & don't worry about making mistakes. If you need any help or anything, just give me a shout here. - Alison ☺ 05:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick request

Hey, I'm going offline. If you're going to around a little longer, could you keep a watch on Lesbian and Homosexuality for me? Some editor seems to feel those articles are incomplete without a link to some silly survey about lesbians being more likely to be overweight. If he adds it again he made need to be asked to stop revert warring :-). WjBscribe 05:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Will do. I'll put them on my watchlist but I'll be scooting off here myself in about an hour. Working at home here ... 'night! - Alison ☺ 05:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops, I see from below that this request wasn't quite as straight forward as I'd hoped- sorry. Cheers keeping an eye on it. WjBscribe 03:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No problem. Should be interesting to see where this goes. - Alison ☺ 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that a respected editor would consider a published academic paper in a scholarly journal "a silly survey." It's just these sort of sources we desire most in our articles. After all, we're writing an encyclopedia. Is there anything you can do to help facilitate this goal? Rklawton 03:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually its the subject of the survey I find silly- not the standing of the paper. I particularly don't like the use of a report of the survey (which is brief and scant on detail). It doesn't tell us how many of the 6000 women (which already isn't a huge sample) were lesbians - but statistically its likely to only have been about 3 or 4 %. Thats very few lesbians involved in the survey. I also think including it as a stand-alone piece in a long and broad article is problematic. It may have some place in an article about health issues of the LGBT community or a section on this, but is not nearly notable enough a survey to be flagged up so dramatically. WjBscribe 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly it. It seems utterly trivial when it's not got any context. Given that the numbers just aren't statistically significant enough, not much can be concluded. It's an interesting data point but one cannot infer much from it. - Alison ☺ 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WjB, are your concerns based on your reading of the published research or on your reading of the media's reporting of this research? I suspect the latter because an academic paper would address these concerns. Media reporting, on the other hand, is often silly. Starting with the line in your response above "I also think..." - I agree with you entirely. To wit: the current version (since reverted) was flagged up too dramatically. As you say, it belongs in a section about health issues. However, it turns out that no such article or section exists. I brought this matter up here and met with resistance from two editors. As I noted below, I think such a section could be used to great benefit in fighting ignorance. Rklawton 04:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

3) I understand scientific findings are not always embraced by society (Doctor Kinsey dealt with this his whole life) none the less no matter how unpopular they are legitimate scientific finding published in a legitimate publication should be respected not censored on Misplaced Pages.

BTW Getting your friends to revert for you is a clear violation of the idea behind the 3rr. Burntapple 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Quotes out of Australian newspapers aren't exactly 'scientific', regardless of what they're referring to, and bringing up the old chestnut of 'censorship' doesn't help. It's plainly non-notable here. Nor am I "reverting for" anyone here, other than noting that you were already way over the 3RR limit even before I got there. Now I see that another editor has brought the matter to your attention so it should be readily apparent to you at this stage exactly where the problem is here. - Alison ☺ 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So because it's in an Australian newspaper it's not scientific?

The newspaper was quoting the findings of Boston University Burntapple 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Like I said, it's plainly non-notable and not germane to either article. For some reason, you just want to revert and revert and revert until it somehow sticks, yet you've failed to either discuss it on the relevant talk pages nor give your rationale for including it other than stating that it's 'scientific'. - Alison ☺ 06:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What matters is not the fact that Boston U. authored the paper but that American Journal of Public Health published it. This makes it both academic and notable. However, neither this article nor the Lesbian or Gay articles have sections detailing health-related matters (if I've overlooked something, please bring it to my attention). As a result, this bit of information about an obesity correlation seems to have no home, and it's inclusion in these articles appears out of place.

Personally, I think that both the Gay and Lesbian articles should have "health" sections with mental and physical health subsections. Obviously these sections will become lightning rods for POV pushers, but managed carefully, they can become quite useful for myth-busting. The B.U. study/revert war simply highlights the need for such sections. Rklawton 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very fair suggestion, actually. It's encyclopedic but, like you say, it would be quagmire of POV from all sides. Maybe bring it up over on WT:LGBT and see what the folks there think. There may actually be an article already which addresses this. - Alison ☺ 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Rklawton 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'm just heading out here but when I get back, I'll pop over there and comment - Alison ☺ 19:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As always, I look forward to your participation. Rklawton 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"you're pushing the same links"

"you're pushing the same links" I'll thank you to keep a civil tounge.

I am not "pushing" anything.

I am trying to figure out where to best place these scientific findings on wikipedia. Burntapple 06:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have a civil tongue, thanks. And yes, I stand by what I said just there. What you're actually doing is trying to find a home for that non-notable newspaper reference and trying to squeeze it in where you can. And it's just not wanted - Alison ☺ 06:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of civility = Alison? That equation does not work.... --Kzrulzuall 06:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like being accused of "pushing" links and yes that is a barbed description. Burntapple 06:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Familiar with the term "POV-pushing"? - Alison ☺ 06:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought Jo Brand would be an ideal place for the link ;) Also this young man is pushing his luck somewhat. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oi!! BTW - I love this line; "men are fantastic – as a concept" :) - Alison ☺ 06:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (ps: Jo Brand is not a lesbian. Don't tell anyone!) - Alison ☺ 06:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, but I'm struggling to come to terms with it. For years and years most people thought she was, and it's only in the last 10 minutes I've discovered otherwise. Plus I didn't want to miss the chance to crack the joke.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh! Something to do with stereotypes, methinks. But yeah, I'm not a big fan myself, have to say. She rubs me up the wrong way. Mind you, she was awesome on the Trinny and Tranny show a few months back. A total makeover and she looked only amazing :) - Alison ☺ 06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW - I point you in the direction of that last category mentioned on the end of my userpage ;) - Alison ☺ 07:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd already noticed that, and chose my words very carefully accordingly. The same can't be said for "She rubs me up the wrong way" :; One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG!!! And it was Jo Brand, too .... *shudder* - Alison ☺ 07:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (blush)

a reuest

please read the editsumamry i mafde which is hte longest i did, it shows some of my rasoning, which is i think quite accurate.

a punishment that freuqntly kills the punished i think is able to be called "unspeakbly severe"... any place that allows pedophiles to enter into educational positions is underscreened, etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.127.98 (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

• You need to understand this. You went way over the limit on your revert-warring on Canadian residential school system (at least 5 reverts in one hour), you were causing disruption and you refused to discuss the matter with anyone until this message. Then you accused me of First Nations bias which I find offensive in the extreme on a number of levels. You are now blocked for revert-warring for 24 hours. Please do come back after this time and try to re-work your changes on the talk page with other editors this time. One particular editor asked for the page to be protected to lock you out of editing it. I found this inappropriate and tried to work with you instead. You refused - Alison ☺ 07:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

revert war or wp:te needs attention

It appears that EstherRice and Jeffrire may be edit-warring at Talk:Landmark Education.

They seem to be attempting to revert to a rather old version of the article (and thus lose numerous corrections/adjustments/changes), rather than editing going-forward based on the current content.

Several attempts at discussion have met with resistance.

If you can help out, it would be appreciated. Lsi john 13:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi John. They don't seem to be revert-warring on the article itself (yet!) so I think we're okay for the moment. I note that you're trying to mediate on the talk page & that's all good. Try to get them to clearly state their differences and take it from there - Alison ☺ 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (just woke up here)

• Alison, they (whoever they are) appear to have brought in another editor to revert the same

It does not appear that any of the reverting editors are willing to discuss it at all. It's simply a matter of brute force reverting. Lsi john 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how is supposed to be done, but thats my best effort. Lsi john 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And / . Lsi john 13:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

J-Pad semi-protect danke

Thanks for the semi-protect on the Padalecki. It was getting really tiresome reverting all the unsourced changes about who he was dating, and the general dumb vandalism. If it was at least clever, it'd be entertaining, ya know? Strangely, the vandalism on his Supernatural co-star's page isn't that bad. Guess he's too old for the average vandal to care about, huh? Maybe one day they'll realize that some things get better with age. Keep the good work continuing! :) --Ebyabe 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• No problem :) - Alison ☺ 19:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess who?

Quack quack. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indefblocked again - *sigh* - most of the usual 'tells' are there. Can you clean up the mess? - Alison ☺ 19:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Already done, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously it helps if you actually block the account as well as putting the tags on ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Great - thanks :) - Alison ☺ 19:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• So...about blocking the account then? ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• He is - it's just not showing up for some reason. Weird ... - Alison ☺ 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Not showing in your logs either, very odd! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I tried re-blocking but I'm told he's already blocked. Reckon the comma in the name is causing issues with the system - Alison ☺ 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Shhh! I knew I should have picked a username with a comma in. I'm very suspicious of this one. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you join in the arbitration case?

Hi, earlier you had indicated that you would be willing to comment on the arbitration case involving NYScholar. The case has been accepted here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar. I realize your interaction with this user was limited, but I have a feeling that the case is going to be sticky and would benefit from the involvement of cooler heads. I've found the user to be quite abusive (as documented on my talk page and on his (see especially ), as well as the copious verbiage he left on the Talk:Lewis Libby page). This is my first involvement with an arbitration action, so I'm trying to piece together the case very carefully. Thanks! Notmyrealname 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. No problem at all. My involvement with the editor in question was peripheral (I answered a WP:RPP case which turned into a 3RR case which ended up with said editor getting abusive. I've added myself to the RfA and will provide a statement + evidence later - Alison ☺ 03:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. This is terribly offensive. In no way did I ever get "abusive". My talk page has the complete history. These are terribly outrageous statements. I suggest that Notmyrealname stop trying to enlist people in attacking me further. This is a disgrace. --NYScholar 04:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion still stands. The reason I recall it so well was as a result of your attitude and the fact that you 'archived' our conversation which was still ongoing at the time. I'm not going to comment on this any further at this stage but will be submitting a statement to ArbCom soon. I'm sure they'll just accordingly as to whether this is a vexatious case or not - Alison ☺ 04:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I very clearly stated that I had responded to you and thought that the discussion was over. There is nothing "abusive" about such a misunderstanding. I suggest that you review the archive. It is clear and supports what I said. To accuse me of "abusive" conduct because I may have (in your view) prematurely put a discussion in my archive (which I am permitted to do Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines is clearly way off base. Again, review the record. I object to this user (Notmyrealname) attempting to enlist further attacks against me. My behavior in Misplaced Pages has always been entirely civil, as the other statements observe. Notmyrealname, jayjg, humus sapiens, however, engage in personal attacks and perceiving personal attacks (or saying that they do) where none exist. What happened to WP:AGF? --NYScholar 04:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the discussion: User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4#Temple Rodef Shalom. My current talk page has prominently featured a clear note saying that I archive its contents (or move misplaced comments to the proper article talk page) at my discretion. WP:AGF. --NYScholar 04:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not going to comment on this any further at this stage - Alison ☺ 04:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

Would you mind commenting here? Aaron Bowen 07:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• It looks like his current 24-hour block for 3RR is sufficient for the moment. Note that blocks are meant to prevent disruption and not be punitive. In this case, there's already an RfC open & it should be interesting to see how that progresses. In the meantime, I have to assume that the current block is warranted and will be be effective and I do not feel it is appropriate to extend it. When he returns, if he continues with the same behaviour, do let me know - Alison ☺ 07:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, he came off the block ignored the RFC and went right back to the same kind of behavior. I doubt he'll even respond to the RFC. Aaron Bowen 07:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 8 hours on the 4th. When that ended, he got back to business and got a 24-hour block again. You can see where this is going, right? - Alison ☺ 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

ACB

Oops!!! Sorry I missed that. Must be getting tired. Thanks for the message. Kukini 07:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done

Well done semi-protecting Mudkip; I spotted so many sneaky vandalisms and people probably read the wrong things on that article. NHRHS 11:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC) PS: I am User:Han Amos, but I recently changed my name to User:NHRHS2010. NHRHS 11:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

forcibly removed vs stolen

I hope you like how i I tried to handle this one . as opposed to my early attemts attempts without an account on the canadian residentail Canadian residential school system article.Charred Feathers 15:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Tsk-tsk--such poor syntax and grammar. Love, RMS

Ali-oops:

A mhuirnín dílis - go gcuidí tú!! Seosaimh Mac Domhnaill 16:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help

Alison. My recent posting on this page was deleted without reply. Can you please tell me how I should deal with people who protect articles? Many thanks.--Grinning Idiot 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)