User talk:Alison/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Unblock 3Network

You would appear to have blocked IP editing from the 3 Network. I know that you personally don't want any IP editors, but this block is improper and disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You also have a semi-protected talk page, with no readily apparent alternative method for non-autoconfirmed/IP editors to contact you. Please rectify this. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Alison, could you comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3 mobile blocked, where DuncanHill is requesting a review of this rangeblock? Thanks. Fences&Windows 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
See my comment there as well; it seems perverse that we allow Brucejenner to continue socking because a rangeblock would cause "collateral damage", but are happy to rangeblock one of the biggest mobile phone networks in Europe. It ought to be both or neither. – iridescent 20:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL - good grief already. I take 24 hours away and this happens? :) Okay, in no order;
  • DuncanHill, please read WP:FORUMSHOP and take it on board for next time you go on a shopping spree.
  • If you want me to unprot my talk page, or any other for that matter, just ask. Don't go to WP:RPP to stir drama, waste bytes, and cause trouble. As others have pointed out, one glance at this ridiculous prot log for my talk page will explain everything. About 1% of all anon edits here are constructive, the rest are stuff like "I am going to shoot you in the head and laugh as your brains splatter onto the ground and blood pools around your corpse" or "I am going to rape your children and mutilate their dead bodies" - stuff like that. It goes with the oversight/checkuser territory, and largely washes over me; the main issue being the timewasting on everyone else's part that goes with things like this. I'll unprot it now, just for you :) - see how things go.
  • You make very good points indeed about {{checkuserblock}} and, fortunately, they weren't lost amongst the vitriol. I see that FT2, Roger and others have made great improvements to the template, so that's good progress :) tho' I see you're still not impressed
  • Surprisingly - and this comment is for Iridescent too - that particular /16 segment of Hutchinson 3G Network (H3GUK Subscribe Block3) is surprisingly quiet apart from - *coff* - a small few constructive editors (the useragents on CU make that very clear), some registered editors, and bored teenagers like GEORGIEGIBBONS and that Mickey Darwin guy. And again, as a CU and admin, one has to weigh up the access of unregistered editors versus the torrent of timewasting socking, vandalism and other shite that emanates from that netblock. My personal feelings on anon editors never reflects on my blocking actions here; rules are rules and I resent your (DuncanHill's) suggestion that I did this out of some sort of personal bias. That is not the case at all and indeed, I welcome any other checkuser to review this rangeblock and act accordingly. No agendas here. BTW - the Hutchinson 3G Network spans quite a number of other ranges; it's one subsection of the overall 3G network. You can get more info here, for example.
  • A one-week softblock is not "ostensibly indefinite", no matter what way you slice or dice it. This range has been blocked before and will likely be again, unfortunately.
  • Next time you mention someone on WP:AN or WP:ANI, the polite and proper thing to do is let them know with something like {{ANI-notice}}. In fact, the edit notice says you must. Just sayin', since we're talking rules ...
  • To Iridescent: yeah, the BruceJenner thing seems really unfair compared to this. However, without going into too many details, that guy is all over the place and it's particularly hard to nail down his IP ranges without causing a lot of problems for a lot of people. And, as you say, things are only going to get worse as people migrate to mobile networks which have by definition, short DHCP leases. And I really don't know what the answer to this one is. That other vandal - the Colonel Saunders guy - uses Blackberry ranges exclusively to create accounts to circumvent softblocks, for example. My personal experience of complaining to ISPs is that it's a waste of time and energy & most of them couldn't care less.
Ok, back to sleep I go. Better things to do right now - Alison ❤ 05:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and matter of interest, here's another example of an escalating rangeblock of a similar ISP, along with a report here - Alison ❤ 05:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and my page got protected again. Still, I got a few hours out of it before someone dropped by to say, "Hey, you hermaphroditic Nazi skank. You deposit fecal matter on babies' chests, then you consume the babies". Same shite, different day. Oh well ... - Alison ❤ 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a long-term solution to the short-term mobile IP issue—which is only going to get worse with A Certain Company's relentless promotion of their latest two products—my 2c on the matter are here. At some point, someone's going to have to start hassling the ISPs about doing more to shut down problem users; but that's a decision only three people are able to make, one of whom is incompetent, one of whom is too busy and one of whom doesn't care. – iridescent 00:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See...

these... did the rangeblock on JDH's home IPs expire? If so, shouldn't it be reinstated? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Heyya. Yeah, here are the main rangeblock histories; 123 - the first one is the most targeted. More here and here and here and so on. Plenty more, but you get the idea <_< - Alison ❤ 05:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Gheo

Haigh :) Ní bhfaca mé d'teachtaireacht go dtí anois. Conas atá tú? Dornálaíocht (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL - conas tá tú, a bhuachaill? :) Yeah, táim ar scor ar Vicipéid anois agus is fearr liom mo uaireanta a chaitheamh ar áiteanna eile ;) Ar aon nós, fáilte anseo! - Alison ❤ 05:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah táim cuíosach maith.. Díreach tar éis obair a críochnú.. Ag fanacht don clár nua de top gear a íoslódáil. Cad atá tú ag déanamh sna Stáit Aontaithe? Bhíos ann ar feadh cúpla mí san Stáit de Michigan cúpla bliain ó shin.. B'fhéidir go rachaidh mé ar ais tar éis mo Masters. Nílim ró-cinnte fós. Is daoine OTT iad lol Dornálaíocht (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Baltes

Thank you for your help. I've now been reminded that WP:RFO would have been a better route to go. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Alison; recent e-mail I sent you. It is potentially urgent in wikipedia terms, and I would be grateful for an answer. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Anthony - I dint think I got it. Can you resend and I'll get back to you today? It might have ended up in my spam filter - Alison ❤ 18:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for going above and beyond to look into my situation. I really appreciate it.

Richmondian (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Just glad that it got sorted fairly - Alison ❤ 18:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia

Hello. This isn't directly related to any particular article or issue, so I hope you'll forgive me for asking; but I just found your userpage (from Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica), and I'm confused by the views you express there. On the one hand, you urge stronger enforcement of WP:BLP, through approaches such as default-to-delete on AfDs and widespread use of Flagged Revisions; on the other hand, you say you're a sysop on Encyclopedia Dramatica. I have to ask, in that case, aren't your views on BLPs a tad hypocritical? At least Wikipedia tries to enforce BLP policy, even if we could do so much better; ED, as far as I can tell, has no such policy at all. Quite the opposite, in fact; it seems as though its very purpose is to disseminate libel about, and encourage harassment of, non-notable living people. There are hundreds of real people who are too obscure to have biographies on Wikipedia, but have lengthy attack pages on ED (that, if posted here, would be deleted under WP:G10 on sight). Whereas Wikipedia has the policy that unsourced negative information about living people should not be added, ED seems to have the approach that such information should not be removed.

Given all that, how can you possibly justify working as a sysop there? Or does it only concern you when Wikipedia defames people, even though much worse content is permanently present at ED? Robofish (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, let's take a look. We're talking about website that's populated with people writing all sorts of nonsense about real people, using their RL names while they themselves generally hide behind pseudonyms. Many of them are specifically there to attack and bad-mouth these folks. On this site, I have witnessed some of the most egregiously offensive stuff, along with many - too many - graphic and hyper-sexualized images which are deployed seemingly at random. Anonymous editors are creating gratuitous attack articles as well as deliberately propagating falsehoods about other people and their families and blatantly lying about stuff such as their sexuality. When the subjects come along to try to either edit these articles themselves and remove the garbage, they get attacked and even banned. After bannination, some of them are then openly mocked! Once an article is created, it's almost impossible to have removed and asking for it to be removed will cause all sorts of idiots to spill out of the woodwork to add even more stuff thus ensuring its keeping.
  • But that's enough about Wikipedia - let's talk about ED! I'm sure you saw that one coming ...
  • I have evidence of each and every one of these things happening right here on WP. Again and again - and worse. As an oversighter on here, I've seen, and continue to see the worst of the worst. You get the idea.
  • Unlike Wikipedia, ED does not claim to be a neutral, general-purpose encyclopedia nor indeed does it have the same Google Juice™ potential for wrecking someone's reputation as Wikipedia does. What's read there is clearly to be taken with a massive grain of salt. I've even got my own less than flattering article there , complete with shooped pr0n images but I just kinda shrug. It's ED. My editing of ED is almost entirely related to memes and internets drama, which I admit to finding fascinating. I'll admit to being an old-skool troll (but never a vandal) on many other sites, some going back years. Originally, I only went to ED to troll Grawp but I ended up staying long after he 'left'. And so on. The main difference between me and soooo many other Wikipedians is that you know I'm there - Alison ❤ 08:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users

I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 03:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Mail

You have one. Cheers, sonia♫ 11:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thanks ;) - Alison ❤ 08:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Cookie

Kayau has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

  • LOL - thanks :) - Alison ❤ 09:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:So ....

Hello, Alison. You have new messages at MC10's talk page.
Message added 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

U WIN

Just sayin' Pilif12p :  Yo  00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • lol - thanks. I feel like I just kicked a puppy, though. He's not exactly the brightest vandal - Alison ❤ 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Almost as obvious as some of PBML's socks... heh. Pilif12p :  Yo  00:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
:D Tommy! [message]
bravo u give me laughs - lol. Mr. Reeves must have a serious mental disorder. :-P Diego Grez what's up? 00:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
srsly, though - I've no desire to be here, right now. RL is wayy more important than WP & personally, I barely have the inclination to click the 'block' button on this guy. Too much of a waste of time and energy. He can't even get it right on ED - Alison ❤ 00:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering BLP-based proposal

I noticed on your user page that you have a special interest in BLPs. I'm personally in agreement with you that BLPs should be able to be removed on request of the article subject, and would like some help drawing up a proposal for this. I'm asking you specifically because as an oversighter and a long-time admin you might (1) be able to use bigger words (ie referencing other proposals/policies) than I can and (2) that your opinion might carry a little more heft than mine. Let me know if you're interested. elektrikSHOOS 05:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK

Hmmmm. OK. This is with refrence to your message on my talk page. -- MARWAT  07:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I should have done that earlier. (Well, that might have been blocking and then hiding the evidence) Courcelles 07:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am appalled

Hello Alison. We don't know each other, but I came across this thread at Wikipedia Review. In it, the first poster refers to a Wikipedia editor as "...a pathetic little man, with out [sic] a life, narcissistic and a full blown sociopath.". The second post was from you (you Wikipedia user page clearly indicates that the "Alison" account at Wikipedia Review is you). Instead of taking the first poster to task, you blithely join in the fun by more piling on to this editor. You didn't use the kind of terminology that the first poster used, but your participation clearly shows that you accepted it at it was normal discourse.

How to say this. This is not OK. Granted a little research shows that the editor in question is or may be a problem editor. So what? If so, there are ways to deal with this. Trying to destroy the person as a human being is not one of them.

Does it not occur to you people that the person might read these posts and take it to heart. To call someone a "pathetic little man without a life"... Do you not realize that this sort of thing can be hurtful and destructive to a fellow human being? I suppose this is all a game to you people. I deeply hope that you are merely clueless and not actively evil. But even so it amounts to breathtaking insensitivity. And you are an administrator for crying out loud.

It's one thing to call a person "idiotic" or whatever in the heat of discussion over a particular point. Per WP:CIVIL this is not allowed, but it happens, and there are procedures for dealing with it if it gets out hand. But to say such things about a person in icy coldness in a place where the person can see or hear them... man, I sure as heck wasn't brought up that way. Doesn't matter if it's true. In fact, it's worse if it's true. If it's not true, the person can probably shrug it it, but if it is true, it just might cut to the bone. Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please! Take the matter up with the original poster, User:Joehazelton, by all means. He's on-again, off-again banned on WR for his rantings, and few pay much attention to what he says, including me. I'm not a great believer in 'guilt by association' and won't be told where or when I can post on off-wiki forums. Seeing terms like "you people" really presses my buttons. Take it up with the original poster or take it up over there (it's an open forum) by all means, but your patronizing and overbearing comment above is not welcome here. As to my original point on the forum, if the editor in question sees fit to post private correspondence on-wiki again, I'll be more than quick to suppress it yet again and block him. What he did was completely uncalled-for and I stand over everything I did there, as well as my comment to good ol' ranting Joe over on WR - Alison ❤ 10:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Good Lord, the original poster has a Wikipedia account also? Jesus. As to taking it up on Wikipedia Review, you can't be serious. My experience with the people who post there is that, as a general rule, they are... not gentlemen, which is a worse insult than you probably think. In addition to which, many of them are dedicated to the complete destruction of the Wikipedia, for various reasons. I'm obviously not going to get into a pissing contest with such people. And the idea that a Wikipedia administrator would find it amusing to consort with these people at all makes me quite angry, in addition to everything else.
Although it was kind of you not to tell me to "fuck off" or "go whine somewhere else" or to question my worth or integrity as a person, or that sort of thing, I still find your response unacceptable.
If someone violated a policy egregiously enough or committed a bad enough misdemeanor, block him or warn him or go to ArbCom or propose a ban a ANI or submit an RfC or whatever. You would instead rather participate in demeaning him as a human being? I will hinder you if I may. Herostratus (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude... Herostratus, in the post which you've pointed out, all Alison did was point to somewhere on wikipedia where she mentioned that she would block the user in question if they posted private correspondence again, and she also reiterated that on the forum, as such she was simply supporting long held practice. She also said the user had been "blathering" (but not that they were "idiotic", as you suggest that she might have said above), that hardly seems to be the issue which you are blowing it up into. The fact that Alison sensibly decided not to get into a fight with Joe over his choice of wording doesn't suddenly mean that she advocates his point of view; by that reasoning everyone who's read the WR topic but not stood up for the user are also advocating Joe's point of view. Per the fact that Joe's comments are offensive, a quick read over Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment would probably be advisable:

Linking to external harassment, attacks, or to sites which routinely engage in such attacks is usually inappropriate, and should be done only after careful thought has been given to the likely effect on the victim [...] If you have a concern, see if it can be stated without the need to link to external harassment [...] Be careful not to give the impression of furthering or enabling an external campaign of harassment [...] The best thing to do with harassment found on external websites is to ignore it. These kinds of behaviour are aimed at gathering attention, and when [...] interpersonal conflict erupts on Wikipedia as a result, the harassers often feel triumphant and motivated to continue.

I've read over the topic, and let me state unequivocally that there is no way Alison made personal attacks in it, or did anything that is worthy of this discussion, any argument of guilt by association is unconvincing at best, please just drop the matter. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I hear you. I don't really agree. "...everyone who's read the WR topic but not stood up for the user" and participated in the whole sorry spectacle is the question. It's not really a question of guilt "by association" but of guilt by participation. As to Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, inasmuch as it applies here it all, it is basically tactical advice. If you you are saying I should forget about this because (absent getting through to Alison's conscience, which didn't happen) there's nothing I can actually do about it, that may be sound tactical advice, but hardly a defense.
As to "drop[ping] the matter", OK, as far as Alison and this particular incident is concerned. (I may have more to say on the general issue in other forums.) Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your point of view, and thanks for agreeing that it'd be unproductive to pursue this specific incident. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure. It's good that Alison has a good friend like you. But, you know, her assertion "[I] won't be told where or when I can post on off-wiki forums" got me to thinking: is this true? (Or, if you prefer: is that so?), thus this and this. Maybe it is so; I don't know, yet. To be continued, but not here, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Spitfire - you already caught most of the main points, IMO :) As to the substantive questions, which I've already addressed; do I drag this trolling session on and on until it degenerates into further pointless, time-wasting name calling, or do I go do something more interesting instead? I think I'll choose the latter, thanks! Good luck with all those other fora you're working on ;) - Alison ❤ 04:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

RB Permission

Hi, can I have rollback rights? I've undone quite a few vandalism edits, and promise to use my privileged power rightfully. Thanks, --grantyO (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry, but you're a little bit too new and inexperienced for me to grant rollback rights at this time. Call back in a few more months and I'll be glad to review things. Sorry about that - Alison ❤ 10:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Email sent

I've sent you an email :p Netalarmtalk 05:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -  Done now ;) - Alison ❤ 05:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

another Georgie

See the posts by me at the end of this AN/I thread; it's unified and trolled me on meta in the same manner; it and Rev. Ian Cook (talk · contribs) are already blocked on meta per my request.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yah,  Confirmed along with the others - Alison ❤ 06:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hello. Please check your email if you haven't as yet done so. Hazard-SJ Talk 07:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. While it's not exactly constructive, it neither needs suppression nor rev deletion, to be honest. It's the sandbox, after all - Alison ❤ 07:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted kinjal kishor article to user nexon7 user space

I read in guidelines that I should request a administrator to get my deleted page copied to my user space so that I can improve the article. I picked up your name. Will you please tell me what should I do now, thanks in advance. I had created the article on "Kinjal Kishor", a living author, though it seems to have problem of verifiable sources. I intend to improve the article in accordance to wikipedia guidelines. Nexon7 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)nexon7

Ok,  Done - Alison ❤ 07:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)`
  • Alison, I'm apologise for barging in like this but are you aware that Nexon7 is actually Kinjal Kishor? --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 09:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspected as much, yes. However, he can have his article text back so he can export it to somewhere else. That's fine. I've de-tagged it and NOINDEX'd it, etc, but it's not going anywhere near mainspace - Alison ❤ 11:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:MickMacNee

Responded at User talk:MickMacNee - I analyzed your response and underlined a particularly noteworthy phrase within the first sentence of the text that you quoted. BLP does not apply, period, but one should consider implications for relatives of dead people. However the consideration of relatives is not within the framework of BLP itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Recently deceased person on a plane crash and BLP WhisperToMe (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

need your help

username siafu keeps on deleting my edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genghis_Khan#Rashid_.2F_Jewish Wernergerman (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My article got deleted :( Can you send it to me?

Hi Alison,

I hope you have been doing well. I just created a new wikipedia page about Rhino Rack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_Rack) and it was unfortunately deleted :(

It was not meant to be advertising, I just wanted to explain who their company was and what they provided. Oh well, I'll start again and rewrite so it sounds nothing like advertising.

I understand you can email me the article back. Can you send it to me with all the code included so I can update quickly?

Thanks, Joe Jmlnarik01 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi there,

Please could you re-evaluate your (re-)granting of rollback to Dwayne (talk · contribs).

I do appreciate their best intentions, but despite others questioning things, a brief look at their most recent contribs shows problems; examples of not-vandalism reverted include [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

This one I can kinda understand, although I think it was a bad judgement call; see my creation and expln in edit summary.

I note that you wrote "I'm willing to try Rollback again here", and perhaps the trial is over. I also note your edit notice saying that you are busy; there is no great need for alacrity. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note, alt account CousinSkeeter (talk · contribs) also has it.  Chzz  ►  03:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Chzz, are you serious? here Then, cassie weinstein and sana mumtaz get married and its absolutely beatiful because cassie is just so amazing and shes pretty cool. and everyone lives happily ever after. Does that sound constructive? this true blood the tv show is actually nothing like the books that dosen't belong on the article. I understand this one, my mistake. this one wasn't constructive. I didn't know what the heck this was. And to Alison, i'm now editing WhatPort80 and i've been banned from ED because i'm underage apparently, they suggested i edit WP80 instead. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The first was not necessarily vandalism, and rollback is to be used for blatant vandalism only. The second is actually quite relevant, and may be removed or challenged as unreferenced, but is not vandalism. The smoothie one to me looks like a good-faith attempt but the user put the words in the wrong spot. "Blatant" means "my boyfriend is a douche" or "this page is stupiddddd", not "oh this looks ugly and unformatted so I'll just get rid of it". —fetch·comms 21:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh ok, i get now, Here was my problem: I thought we could use Huggle to revert edits that were not too constructive also. But what i'm realizing is that you guys only want me to revert things that are CLEARLY vandalism. Gotcha! - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No, no, no. Here is the problem: Not "us guys" want you to revert obvious, clear vandalism only. The rollback guideline dictates that one should only use rollback "for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit." Of course, you read that when you got rollback, right? So you must have either: already known this, and ignored it, or you did not bother to read the rollback page at all. What you thought about using Huggle shows that you aren't ready to use it. I strongly suggest that you avoid using Huggle for a week, and work on improving existing articles, while also reviewing what should and should not be reverted. —fetch·comms 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Dwayne: It is quite simple; you've been told many times, and it is hard to make things more clear;
  • Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism
  • If there is any doubt about whether to revert an edit, please do not use this feature
You've been told this before, you had the right removed before. The above demonstrates that you still do not really understand.
Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia—and I'm not being condescending here; please, consider that for a moment. We want it to be as easy as possible for anyone to edit.
A new user cannot be expected to understand the zillions of rules, guidelines, etc.
If someone, in good faith, adds information such as true blood [...] nothing like the books [6] — absolutely it is constructive. I have no idea if that is true or not; that is irrelevant. It would need a reference, of course. But, can you not see that it is, potentially, an improvement to the article? It gives information about the topic. It ain't vandalism. Then they need encouragement; we need to thank them, not bash them with a warning. Chzz  ►  23:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
k, Chzz! I will only revert things that are blatant vandalism. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 00:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment- Huggle's own interface allows users to revert for a number of reasons--- hence the little drop down arrow next to revert (the cute little button with the lightning or whatever). You should Ignore all Rules (which is policy, WP:ROLLBACK is just a guideline) and use rollback with a justified use, I say do NOT only revert blatant vandalism- revert trolling, spam and other reasons (as long as you use a custom summary that is) but most importantly be sure to be clear to the user why their edit is no longer in Wikipedia (not just uw-vandal1 etc), otherwise that would be an unjustified use of rollback. But of course, as a rule of thumb if you are ever unsure, just press space and aim to revert only vandalism, which is what i do (AGF) and I seem to never (or rarely at least) have any serious problems. Best of luck --Tommy! 03:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

girl, you're awesome

.. and quick, too :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

O_o Two sock-puppeteers rekindling old edit-wars & ratting each other out over on SPI :) - Alison ❤ 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

have an old friend for dinner

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, sorted ;) - Alison ❤ 22:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

I emailed you. Cheers, PST 09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

revert

Is this revert a mistake ??? Freewol (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we all make mistakes, she didn't do it on purpose. :/ - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
An answer would be appreciated from revert's author, a simple "sorry" would be enough in case of a mistake. Thanks in advance. Freewol (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm doubly-sorry :( The revert was an accident - I was on my cell phone & I must have hit it without knowing. I'm really sorry. Also, this message kinda got lost, too. Sorry about that - Alison ❤ 23:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) It was important for me to be sure, I'm happy that things are now clear. Freewol (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Moar from that banned editor

Could you, or any admin watching, possibly block 90.221.144.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) again please? You can tell it's still Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), what with him prattling on about communists like McCarthy on crack. Thanks! 2 lines of K303 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Hackie. Looks like Foz beat me to it. No other underlying socks, tho' - Alison ❤ 23:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the fun I'm having...

Hi, Alison. Sorry to bother you, but I'm trying to spread the word about a certain banned user who, as I've learned, is bothering you at Encyclopedia Dramatica. Moreno oso suggested I contact you. User:BoxingWear and his Endless Supply of Socks has been following me across several wikis over the last two weeks, impersonated me on YouTube and Lycos and has been a real pain in the you-know-what. The otherwise quiet Eflightwiki.com has been absolutely firebombed by this guy as evidenced by recent changes: [7]. He just attempted to e-mail bomb me, but that was a simple matter of disabling my e-mail over here and forwarding the garbage to spam control. He's beat me up on a few Wikia projects, namely the Christmas Specials and Radio Control wikis where I'm an admin and via an old, unused account at the Wallace and Gromit wiki where I'm not. He's hit me at Simple English as well. So, after communicating with other affected users and blocking all his known IPs, he's now reduced to using proxies. I've contacted no fewer than four law enforcement agencies and until they stop him, I'll have to put up with the annoyance. Anyway, I just wanted you to know. Sorry about my not having e-mail, but I had to disable it. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Whew! Thank god he didn't mention my talkpage. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
What, you mean the part where you said Alison was cute...? Hey, a picture is worth a thousand words, after all!  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh - that guy. Yeah, he tried crapflooding my mail at one point but I just blackhole all that stuff. He's probably still at it :) Good luck with having him stopped, tho'. If you need dox on him, they're pretty easy to find if you dig around. Personally, I just ignore the guy - life's too short - Alison ❤ 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but now I'm getting a double whammy from this little dweeb who has clearly been following my travails here. I've asked Wikia to simply shut me down over there as best they can. Taking me a nice, long break from the procedings for now. Hope to talk to you soon.

PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

A request

I have a request, can you please delete everything I have in the view history here, here, here and here, and there's quite a lot things. I'm very sorry for that and I do not want that to be there. I was talking with other administrator and he said that he can't delete revisions from actual articles so I hope that you could do that. I would like to be deleted just my work, or if that can't be done then to completely erase the view history, it will nothing happen with article, it will be the same just there will not be past versions, and am sure that you know that. I hope that you will delete it, and I would be very grateful to you. Thank you in advance. Corey.7.11.1992 1:34, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi Corey. I'm not sure why you'd want to do that and I'm not sure how it's covered under policy. Is it some sort of personal info issue? - Alison ❤ 23:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a fact that I made a lot of mistakes when I just came to Wikipedia, and I didn't know how is working editing files, I am always hitting bottom "Save page" but I was needed to hit "Show preview" before saving. So now looking for someone that could delete this mistakes that I did and I think that there is simply no need to be there. Two (this and this) are uploaded files, and other two are actual articles, so is easier to delete revisions from uploaded files than actual articles. I don't know what else to write, except that I would like that to be simply deleted, if you want to delete that or not it's up to you. Thank you for the time allocated for my request. Corey.7.11.1992 10:19, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Response

I sorta trimmed down the history section in my user page. That problem is solved. +c0p7wr0n6,_1nc.- 13:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks for doing that, and sorry for having dinked around with your userpage - Alison ❤ 23:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback Request

Hello Alison, I saw you were on the list of administrators that are willing to grant rollback rights and was wondering if I was eligible to be granted permission to use them. In the last view days my account page is been targeted by vandalism and it is somewhat of a hassle to deal with quickly. Luckly other users came to my rescue and reverted it all back to its original state. However, I believe I would benefit from having rollback rights, and I am a very sensible Wikipedia editor. Thank You Aaddaamm94 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage in a cat

Your userpage User:Alison/c has a category, and so appears in Category:User warning templates.
As the guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a semicolon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:User warning templates]].-DePiep (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Yes, it's in userspace yet it's in a common projectspace category. However, it's a little unusual in that it's actually a shared template and is used by members of the Oversight team so though it's local, it's universal, so to speak :) Feel free to remove the categorization if you like - I can easily track it either way - Alison ❤ 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, apart from that the page is protected, I prefer not to edit a User's page. It's more like a one-way, one-time note.
(Somehow OffT), it seems that my today created template {{uw-upincat}}, a User warning template, is working well. This was it's first usage. But since your page is in Category:User warning templates, it is a bit circular-referencing and so now it's OnT again :-) -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
lol - oh, okay :) I've dropped the prot to semi now, though, so if you want to edit it, work away! Thanks for the note - Alison ❤ 10:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 as a one time exception -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison/Archive_42&oldid=1190136915"