User talk:Alison/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Alison. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

best typo ever!! :) ~Eliz81 ^(C) 08:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops!! Hilarious :) - Alison ^❤ 20:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this must be the Wikipedia equivalent of "buy one, get the second half price"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Allison, I was wondering if you could perform a checkuser for me. On August 29 of this year, I reverted all changes made by 128.164.214.189 (originating out of George Washington University) starting with Neal Anderson and ending with Steve Spurrier. All of these edits were exactly same, adding Category:University of Florida alumni to the pages where a sub-category of this, Category:Florida Gators football players was already present. I explained this to the user on his/her's talk page. Now, on September 28 (last Friday), this exact same edit pattern began. This time the first user to make the edits was 128.164.215.188, also registered to GWU. Then, it appears that this same user created 4 different usernames within a matter of an hour or so. All of the edits made under these usernames were exactly the same (adding Category:University of Florida alumni to articles already categorized as Category:Florida Gators football players, including many pages I reverted on August 29 and informed the user about). Here are the usernames/IPs and the times the edits are made - if you check out the contributions for each username, you'll notice that each new username was created to categorize a separate block of the category with (i.e. they're in alphabetical order). I'm not sure if this was just to throw me off or for some other reason:

128.164.214.189 - 29 August

128.164.215.188 - 28 September 13:18-13:22

TTomzak - 28 September 13:28-13:34

Real Gator - 28 September 13:35-13:43

UFAlum1965 - 28 September 13:45-13:50

Ross Wilcox - 28 September 13:51-13:57

Thanks. Pats1 ^T/C 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pats (go Pats ;)).. Alison doesn't have CheckUser priviliges (it's a very limited subset of users who have it). You may want to go to Request for CheckUser and file the request there. SirFozzie 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I had only seen checkuser in one situation so I just thought all sysops had access. Thanks. Pats1 ^T/C 18:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pat. Unfortunately, I don't have Checkuser privileges so I can't help you there. Request for CheckUser is the best place to go. Let me know if you need any help filing a request - Alison ^❤ 20:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison,

I'm looking for some advice please, as I guess I am doing something wrong. I have a community based website which offers news and local information about Cork. Therefore I genuinely believe is of relevance to both people of Cork and people wishing to visit Cork. However I received a message to stop adding my external link to the Cork pages. Please can you advise on the correct approach.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulBrugger (talk • contribs) 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I can see where you're coming from all right, but Wikipedia is not just a collection of links. That's what DMOZ is for. We get so many external links being added that we have to be majorly choosy & linkcruft is a huge problem here, especially portals. Also, it appears that you're just here to promote your own website which is not what we're about. The external links policy is at Wikipedia:External links & you should probably have a good read of this before editing further. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help here - Alison ^❤ 20:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:ICCLlogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done ^Ariel♥Gold 08:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

75.32.36.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - in particular the discussion on Category talk:Irish Roman Catholics‎. Looks like our old friend 75.3.2.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bobby Sands man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). IP is Chicago based still..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I notice that you're a gaeilgóir too. Just a short note to say that the Irish language Wiktionary is up and running again after a long break, and is actually thriving. We'd love to have you over there if you're interested! http://ga.wiktionary.org - slán! :) - Alison ^❤ 06:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have time to do that successfully, but if my circumstances change I'll keep it in mind. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. It was worth a try :) Feel free to pop over whenever you get the chance - Alison ^❤ 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

hi i had typed up an article and it was immediately deleted, could you please recover the information for me? xD tyvm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprigmore (talk • contribs) 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at Dwarf thumbs and, to be honest, looks like total nonsense. Why should it be undeleted? - Alison ^❤ 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you look at this for me and see if it should be deleted (nothing on the article really) El-Nin 09 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 2008 VIVA World Cup - Sorry i am an idiot! El-Nin 09 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a tiny stub and looks seriously NN. It's largely outside my area of expertise but I note that it has about zero Ghits other than Wikipedia itself, I'd say it's possibly a hoax. AfD it? - Alison ^❤ 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, I sent you a request by email regarding my talk page. Please forgive me if the request is unreasonable or you didn't understand it.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to it later today. Busy busy here .... - Alison ^❤ 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, and sorry if I rushed you.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done - all sorted now. Best of luck for the future - Alison ^❤ 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just askin. SirFozzie 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh! Nooooo :P - bring it on, already ('coz it's a payday, too!) - Alison ^❤ 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And best still this Friday I get DJs from London playing dirty techno five minutes from my house, beats travelling all the way to London! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo!!! ;) - Alison ^❤ 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing interesting is happening for me this Friday—I listen to live recordings of music all the time, and I get paid today. -yawn- I know, I'm just the coolest bloke you know. :P — $PЯINGεrαgђ 23:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing like the fuzzy brain after-effects of a night out for getting some inspiration for an article either. While recovering from London Brian Keenan finally got written, I think article #7 (out of a planned 2!) since my return may well get written this weekend. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wowz. That puts an entirely new twist to the phrase, "You need to get out more often" :) Booze + music + whoknowswhat = Featured Article - Alison ^❤ 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All good writers need inspiration, and mine is "whoknowswhat" ;) I've got plans for three more articles possibly, and one of them isn't even Ireland related... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OOPS! Sorry about the gift mishap. I'm doing 987432 things at once here! =) hmwith talk 22:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, pshaw - don't worry! Just delighted to see you got unanimous approval from the community. Well done :) - Alison ^❤ 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, would you mind protecting User:Kyoko/Esperanza essay? I had been thinking of deleting it (when it was in its old location of User:Kyoko/Sandbox5) but after getting some comments today on it, I've decided to leave it up for now.

Anyway, would you mind move and edit-protecting it? It's not something I plan on editing again, and the only foreseeable change I might make to it would be possibly to delete it. If I don't plan on editing it, no one else needs to either. Thank you! --Kyoko 00:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected no problem at all :) - Alison ^❤ 00:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Alison. First of all, great work on your requests for page protection. You recently denied to protect Wi-fi and I just wanted to ask you to please take another look as I'm sure you'll see there really is a lot of vandalism going on there. Please help us out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterdriggs (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Honestly, it's really not at all that bad. Some of those anon editors are making constructive edits, far as I can ascertain - Alison ^❤ 00:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with you. Thanks again for all your work. Carter | Talk to me 00:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

snork* FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

*snerk* They're just not making them like they useta - Alison ^❤ 01:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I sometimes have to fight the urge to copyedit first. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrmmm, if one copy-edits vandalisms, does that make one a vandal? (There is a philosophical subject in there somewhere, I'm just sure of it...) ~*Giggle*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the sound of one Wikipedia Vandal getting bashed with a thwacking stick?. When you understand the meaning of life, you will know the answer to what you seek... SirFozzie 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do I want to add "Wax on, wax off" there? :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ali. Instead of the now-standard greeting card message, I'm thanking people straight up. I was nominated by two great wiki-friends, and was supported by a list of great and established editors, including you! It certainly sets the bar very high on expectations, so I'll be diligent in fulfilling them. So, a truly thank you for your comments in my request, and hope to work with you in the future. If I have any doubts or questions, I hope I can count on you for counsel and support. Things like resolving controversial discussions, or questions like "what does that delete button do?" :P Thanks again!! - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just unbelievable.Traditional unionist 13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not providing cites, I'm wording the text according to what the cites actually say. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Nothing wrong with that. However, the revert-warring has to stop. Furthermore, I note that the cite-required tags said September but Dunc couldn't wait until October juuuuust rolled in before he started deleting. Given the nature of the article and its previous history, he should really have gone to the talk page to state his intentions rather than triggering yet another revert-war. Right now, the way both yourself and TU are working seems to be okay as he's providing cites and you're re-working them until both sides are reasonably satisfied. As it should be - Alison ^❤ 15:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not just "has to stop", WILL stop. One way.. or the other. It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert 3RR blocks on both sides, Discuss. In fact, a lot of the folks in the arb com should be getting used to 1 revert a week, because that's looking like the law of the land going forward. SirFozzie 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bring it on already, Foz. A 1R limit for these folks would go a long way towards helping - Alison ^❤ 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what? Let me talk to Ty and Rock and BHG. Maybe as the involved admins in all of this, we can put the proposed probation (1 Revert a week, not counting anonymous IP reverts) on all the edit warriors... even before the ArbCom finishes their deliberations. Got my back on it? SirFozzie 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it. Then communicate our intentions to the main players here. That way, there'll be no surprises. But yeah, it's within blocking policy and should make people think twice. There are some folks around her who think they're entitled to go to their 3R limit per day - Alison ^❤ 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Brought it up with them, let's see how it turns out :) SirFozzie 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent). I'm OK in principle with 1RR, but am concerned about whether it is appropriate to pre-empt arbcom (see my reply to SirFozzie on my talk). If we all agree on 1RR, I think we should notify arbcom and at least give them the possibility to tell us to "hang on". But we can't go on with this cycle of the two sides striding into edit wars and then demanding admin involvement to unravel punish the other side for the collective failure to avoid conflict.

BTW, Alison, your reply to ONIH about BigDunc is spot-on. I had been groping towards a similar conclusion as I read it all, but you put it perfectly (though of course TU was also way out of order in revert-warring). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The girl who "doesn't" get involved in Irish articles, can you tell me what I did that needs you to warn me on my talk page after I had recieved one from BHG, I can read and dont need to be told twice. I removed unsourced material from the article TU is well aware how to reference articles but he was misquoting refs as pointed out by ONIH and relying on a blog for a ref. So are we just supposed to leave these claims indefinitly? What ever happened to BE BOLD. I reverted the article twice after the changes I made and so as not to get blocked I stopped and was unable to put in any refs to this article which is now protected. And could you tell me what TU has done constructively to the article since my changes accept revert? BigDunc 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to warn TU and not you when both of you are out of order. These matters are sensitive enough, as well you know, and you may have heard that it's the subject of an Arbitration case. Point is, those cite-requires were marked since September and as soon as Oct rolled around you were in there and removed the lot wholesale. What did you think was going to happen?

Next time, when it comes to sensitive articles like this, announce your intent on the talk page and when someone like TU starts to revert-war on the matter, don't follow suit. You're not entitled to three reverts per day and policy doesn't state that you are. The proper response in this case was to work with the other editor, as ONiH has just shown. TU is now doing his best to obtain sources right now. Being bold isn't always appropriate, especially in an article that's been previously identified as a flashpoint and has already been semi-protected. I don't like working with Irish articles - that's true - however, when someone asks me on my talk page, I feel I need to do my best - Alison ^❤ 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel I adhered to the WP:5 and do you not think in my Being bold I helped the article develop faster as TU had no intension of doing anything to the article as it suited his POV. BigDunc 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your being bold, in the manner in which you did, precipitated an edit-war - one which you readily dived right into. Not helpful - Alison ^❤ 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a chicken and egg scenario I think it was TU's reverts and putting in unsourced material and mis-referenced quotes that started the edit war not my attempt to make a better article. BigDunc 17:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the poultry; the chicken and the egg are not edit-warring with each other.

This is quite simple: both of you had option for avoiding an edit war, and either of you could have stopped it. That's why you both got warnings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I had stopped before your warning BHG but TU carried on regardless I asked him not to and so did Padraig but he choose to ignore all 3 warnings which he has got away with. If you look at talk page TU has been asked numerous times to provide sources which he has refused to. But thanks for your impartiallity on this matter if only all admins where like you. BigDunc 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison you still have not told me what I have done wrong to get a warning from you, must the tags stay for a set time a day, a week, a month or indefinitly he has been asked by me and other editors to provide sources and he hasn't. So what would you recommend I should have done on this issue not remove the unsourced material and links to sluggerotoole's blog. I reverted twice and stopped, my last edit was at 13:58, October 2, 2007. BHG gave a warning at 14:14, 2 October 2007. I still had not touched the article and then you pop up at 15:24, 2 October 2007 almost an hour and a half after I had stopped editting and an hour and ten minutes after BHG had warned me WHY? BigDunc 19:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison could you check this out , thanks, --Domer48 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Even I didn't spot that one, although the redirects made me suspicious. Is anyone ever planning to delete Gene Feist? *hints* One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Hack, that link appears to be red ... - Alison ^❤ 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :-D

Go raibh maith agat a chara. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Girlsintheirshifts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Too easy. Did you catch the Playboy of the Western World reference? - Alison ^❤ 19:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, please enlighten me. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Synge play contained the line, a drift of females standing in their shifts", and this caused riots at the time (apparently instigated by the Shinners of the day) - Alison ^❤ 19:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Bit outside of my sphere of knowledge. Almost as bad as Seán South (of Garryowen) allegedly breaking up courting couples in the cinema.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm, that one is certainly , errrr, something that has been mentioned more than once by people around here FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's not in the song, it didn't happen ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fix this please. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear! Thanks, Hack, but I arrived on the scene about three hours too late :) Someone's restored it - Alison ^❤ 03:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a minute to look over something for me, pretty please? ^Ariel♥Gold 03:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, yep. Just blocking the latest round of RMS sock-puppets here ... - Alison ^❤ 03:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, I was asked to look into this, and I have my opinions, but please look at Special:Contributions/Easphi. This seems to be a single purpose account, adding non-WP:RS sources, (many in .pdf format, which is discouraged by WP:EL) as well as video links (also discouraged by WP:EL specifically, users shouldn't be required to have an external video/audio app to verify sources or external links) which may be WP:COPY violations, not to mention obvious security issues since this is not a reliable or well-known website. What are your thoughts? (And thanks for being around for me to bug with this, lol) ^Ariel♥Gold 03:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Some examples that I've removed: , . Some of the refs are to a book, and I'm willing to place those into citebook templates, but they are not given as footnotes so no clue what the book would be in context to the pages it is cited on. I moved them into "Additional reading" on a couple pages. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 10) zOMG - they're out of control. A SPA for the sole purpose of spamming "astronauticsnow.com" and their "Blazing the Trail" book as much as possible into wikipedia. Chances are, that's Mr. Grutmann himself. Stern, final WP:SPAM warning, mention the local MediaWiki blacklist and let them know they're in last chanceville. They've been warned before and are completely unresponsive. Revert all their spam - it's just abusive, really, and we're not here to market their stuff - Alison ^❤ 03:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Okay, it'll take me a long time to revert all of those, lmao. But I can tell you, I'm a huge space enthusiast, and this site is not remotely known, and I really have issues with asking people to download anything due to security issues. Can you please give me the link to the blacklist? I might have it in my bookmarks, but I'll be darned if I can find it now, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back bazillions of them already. They're either external links or references and there are hundreds (literally) of them. Click this to get the full list. I'm putting this URL into the blacklist right now. See MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist - that's the link you want. This guy needs to be stopped - Alison ^❤ 04:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done - locally, at least - Alison ^❤ 04:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I went over his contribs pretty thoroughly before deciding to ask for another opinion (and before reverting more, in case I was wrong), and I'm writing up the final warning now. Thank you so much for reverting them, that's way easier for you to do than for me, lol. (And P.S., sorry I made you EC with me, lol, Type A struck again, with small typos and wanting my explanation to be clear, lol) ^Ariel♥Gold 04:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec x 2) A quick check shows that at least it's not cross-wiki - Alison ^❤ 04:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness, lol. Alright would you review User talk:Easphi and change/add anything you feel is appropriate? Also, some of the articles those links were added to, were subsequently edited by others, and the links were left. Will they be removed now that the site is on the list, or only if that site is added now, (i.e. not retroactive)? ^Ariel♥Gold 04:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm really annoyed - this guy has done an unfunny amount of damage. His book and website links have very little to do with a lot of what he's inserted all this into. I've done all the rollback I can and it's manual from here. Can you click this and have a go? Look out for the "blazing Gruntman" book ref, too. Ugh! - Alison ^❤ 04:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yuck. I'll help out on the ext. links page. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) - thanks, Flyguy. I'm flat-out here :( - Alison ^❤ 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Flyguy!! M'dear, thanks for helping, and I'll get to work on that as well! And Alison, honestly, thank you so much for being here to help with this, and being willing to dig into it once you saw what it was, lol. Next time I'll bug you with a simple issue, okay? LOL! ^Ariel♥Gold 04:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all! Bug any time ya like :) - Alison ^❤ 04:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL Just ask Flyguy and Jmlk, normally when I say "Yooo hooo!" they run for cover, because they know something big is coming, lmao. (Stuff I just can't handle like this, lol) Granted, I didn't fully realize the extent of this, but I did know it wouldn't be easy to remove some of these links, lol. Sowwy I made you work so hard! But I do appreciate it, so very much. ^Ariel♥Gold 04:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh - I'll know better next time :) BTW - slow down, Flyguy - I keep ec'ing with you :) We're just about done here, now. Lots of damage to be repaired & his later refs used tags instead of Harvard cites. Gonna do a search for the book, too, to see where that turns up - Alison ^❤ 04:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Alison. I just found a couple of links to the book that weren't in the external links page on one of the pages. Lots still to do. Dude must've referenced the entire text of the book in various articles! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He's everwhere - ugh! And I'm pretty certain he's not even referencing the book per se; a lot of the refs are just arbitrary pointers and aren't germane to the reference - Alison ^❤ 04:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably. And you got me back... I just ec'd with you on Rocket. ;P -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While the book may be relevant for some topics and articles, this was just over and above spamming it. I think that if editors decide to use the book as a ref, that's fine, but in articles where it actually matters. Plus this is not a well-known or widely-published book, and without context, honestly is just advertisement, in my opinion. (And I feel really bad for getting you guys dragged into this, lol if you're tired I can go through all his contribs and fix the rest.) ^Ariel♥Gold 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I started off meticulously checking the links and refs to see why they were there and what they meant in context, then gave up after about the first dozen. They're all gone now but there are still a lot of gratuitous book references to be sorted. *sigh* - Alison ^❤ 05:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I'm going through his contribs from the earliest and have found a few more. I'm up to 22:21 on Sept 1. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I think we're done. Search shows up clean & I clashed with you a number of times :) He even managed to hit List of Polish Jews and Arthur C. Clarke. I note that almost all edits were to just enter the book ref without any reason whatsoever. Some of the earlier edits had some text to try to place them in context but he soon gave up on even doing that. Thanks, guys, for putting the effort in and cleaning up the mess. A lot of everyone's time wasted, including Mr. Gruntman's, unfortunately - Alison ^❤ 05:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He added the book ref to the Nature article... um, how exactly does that "specifically relate to the context and enhance the reader's understanding of the subject"? lol. I wonder what his common search term was to find all these semi-related articles, "Space"? Sheesh! ^Ariel♥Gold 05:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still showing two pages as search results. Does it not clear when they're removed? ^Ariel♥Gold 05:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Linky, please! :) I saw the "Nature" one and it made me pause. He'd put references in to heliocentrism & a link to you-know-where, with a paper he'd co-written. Shoehorned into the article - Alison ^❤ 05:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well same link I think, I re-did the search after purging the cache and my local cache and it still shows all the same pages. But when I check some, the refs were removed. And, on a completely different topic, per the Nature article, what is your opinion on forcing image sizes on people (when users can set image size prefs in "My preferences", and some editors use large font/low res screens, per WP:MOS#Images this causes issues with display.) I think that's a pet peeve of mine, when I go to a page that has haphazardly laid out forced 200+ pixel images onto the page. Images should be used to illustrate specific points that would be difficult to articulate with words, not to be decorative. I'd like the nature article to keep the images, but to not force the sizes. What do you think about that sort of thing? ^Ariel♥Gold 05:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus on that whole image size thing, Ariel. I've seen that one come up again and again. It's awfully subjective. I understand that you can set that in your prefs, too but not too many people actually know that, I suspect! Re. the refs, the editor below re-inserted them - Alison ^❤ 05:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Contribs are done. I found another one in Soviet space program under "further reading". That's eight edits by us to that article to remove all the spam. Oy! Glad to help out. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and in some articles, they may be appropriate, but I have my doubts, looking at the quality of the site, the quality of the book cover, etc., I'm sure there are other books out there far better to source. And I can see using the oversized images in some articles, like with panoramic views, but I think the Nature article goes a bit too far with it. Ah well, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How does the citation you've removed from Astronaut constitute spam? — Swpb^talk|edits 05:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I just answered that on your talk page as you were typing that here :) - Alison ^❤ 05:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. It looked innocent, I didn't realize it was a SPA. — Swpb^talk|edits 05:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) No problem at all. Take a look at the guy's edit history. He's done nothing but spam the same links again and again and again. I'm going to look for a better source for those links I took out of Astronaut - NASA are bound to have something there - Alison ^❤ 05:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison, don't worry about it, I'm planning on working on that article, actually, putting refs into citation templates and doing some format work, so I can add some additional references quite easily. Take a break, dear! We've been working for over an hour with that spam stuff, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay :) I'll have to take you up on that. I'm still in work here and it's nearly 11pm!! Thanks for reporting/sorting the mess. 'night!! And goodnight, Flyguy - thanks for getting dug-in. Go team Rocket!! - Alison ^❤ 05:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your absolutely tireless work in assisting me with what ended up being a rather long and nasty WP:SPA issue, the time you took to clean up Wikipedia in the wake of the SPA is above and beyond. Thank you my dear Alison. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Awww - thanks :) Do give one to FlyGuy, too. And youself, of course! - Alison ^❤ 06:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've checked out the references that have just been removed from Rocket , and I have no evidence whatsoever that they are spam; they are pertinent, not significantly commercial and very informative. Could you explain what made you label them as spam? So far as I can tell, this is a mistake. Tx. WolfKeeper 08:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Bridget (given name), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - added a bunchload of detail, pronounciation etc - Alison ^❤ 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A few months ago, you worked with Elipongo to handle a persistant link spammer, Special:Contributions/202.41.187.247, eventually leading to a lock on the page and a temporary block on the user. Ze's back, adding the same URLs to the same article and using several IPs and a registered name to have a "discussion" on the talk page (details are there).

Should I go through WP:SSP or can you cut hir off without all of that?

Mdbrownmsw 21:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see that there's massive astroturfing going on on that talk page. However, I'm not seeing any revert-warring or incivil behaviour at this point. The previous editor was blocked for incivility/disruption/spamming/threatening more but that block has long expired and you need to begin afresh, as it were. I'll keep a lookout, but everything is above-board and fine so far ... - Alison ^❤ 16:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do those have to be closed, the plainlinks ones? I haven't closed the one on my page or my talk page (because inevitably someone will type below it, instead of above it, lol) and I never saw a problem. Just wondering, because I told Flyguy he didn't have to close it if he didn't want to, lol. I can see doing it on userpages, but I've got an open div tag on my talk page and so far (cross fingers) it hasn't been of any issue, lol. Am I making a faux pas? ^Ariel♥Gold 16:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't have to be, as plainlink divs like that cause no problems if they leak. Generally, the only divs I leave open are the talkpage ones (like this :) ) so that there's no text below where the next person types. I'm just being silly about it, though, so don't mind me. Close them when you can, is all, for correctness - Alison ^❤ 16:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC) (why yes, I am a Virgo. Why do you ask? ;) )

Oh, no its fine, it just made me wonder if I could somehow mess up my talk page having them open. I have my border open and the plainlinks tag open, so I just got to thinking, and figured I'd ask a master coder, lol. Do you remember when the block template had an error that didn't close its div tag? That was many months back, and fixed fairly quickly, but I still run into pages that were blocked by someone during that time, and the rest of the text is "leaked" into the box, lol. I fix them as I find them, though, hee hee. (I'm not type A!) Anyway, it is good to know that I'm not messing something up leaving them open, hee hee. (P.S., I've answered the Rocket question above on the editor's talk page for you, hope you don't mind!) Have a Happy Friday! ^Ariel♥Gold 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"master coder" - ya right!! :D Yeah, I remember the leaky messages and the pumpkin coloured talk pages :) Thanks, BTW, for answering the Rocket guy. You're awesome! - Alison ^❤ 17:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about that, but I figured it was the least I could do for dragging you into the whole mess in the first place! Hee hee. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

hi Ali, I noticed that even though I gave a very strong argument for retaining Commonwealth postal orders it was deleted. Is there any way you can post the content of both the article and talk page into a user page of mine so I could see if it is possible to rewrite it in an acceptable format? TIA ww2censor 18:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done - just mark it with {{db-userreq}} when you're done! - Alison ^❤ 22:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cheers ww2censor 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison! I've noticed you're quite active on RFPP, so I was wondering if you could help me. I recently responded to this request by protecting D. James Kennedy, but I received a complaint for having protected due to an edit war, when (according to this editor, at least) there wasn't one. I replied that I'm fairly sure I protected according to policy, but that I'd ask someone with more experience at WP:RFPP (i.e. you :-) ). Your input would be helpful. · AndonicO ^Talk 01:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Beat you to it — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

lol!!! I'm getting old :) - Alison ^❤ 18:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok - now that's better :) How long before they get bored, I wonder? - Alison ^❤ 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Whew. I thought I was going to have to order you a walker, or at least a cane.. don't want you hurting yourself.. *grins and ducks!* SirFozzie 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Inserting controversial material without a reliable source" as the block reason I think — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting older - fixed :) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oi! Watchit you, you cheeky young pup! I'm not too old to wheel-war you in a fit of mutual blockage :) - Alison ^❤ 18:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's if your eyes haven't deteriorated to the point you block half of North America trying to get me, Allie Sweetie. Just remember, Squinting doesn't help.. (Can you tell that work on a saturday sucks? :D) SirFozzie 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

lol!! I've an extra-big block button made. In fact, I've a special block message just for you :-D - Alison ^❤ 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Brat ;) SirFozzie 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this blockable? I can't think of the exact warning for that off hand either.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd think Vandalism covered it quite well... SirFozzie 21:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

On a talk page? Really? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be on a mainspace page to be vandalism. SirFozzie 21:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Care for some sprot? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC):...and I couldn't resist. Just remove it if you like :) Hope you're doing OK, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) I think you ruined the troll's fun, though :D - Alison ^❤ 18:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This wasn't meant to undo your protection; it was actually a protection conflict. ~~At any rate though, that protection conflict is the least of my worries;~~ the other unprotections I did were a huge mistake. Acalamari 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Struck: problem over. :) Acalamari 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Allie: I had no idea about your history of depression. I also take medication. In fact, when I had a lapse in my health insurance (my fault, mostly) in '06, was when I initially got so out of control that I ended up being, well, you know, banned (although I still believe that the punishment was unduly harsh).

Anyway I really thought you had it all together, and I know you have a child, and a job and all that erudition and a polyglot, as well. so it's amazing that you have functioned at all, even if that means interacting with low-lifes and lackeys. I am not sucking up. I have no reason to.

I don't know (and I don't want to know) how Vintagekits found out, so much for the tolerance of Fenians that their enemies can expect. I have long been of the opinion that he should be banned indefinitely from Wikipedia as I am sure you know. He is worse than I ever was.

Anyway if you want to respond do so on your talk page (I can't give away all my secrets can I?), but it's not necessary. I hope that as my worthy Czech-Irish-Catholic-atheist-anime-loving adversary you get better. It's good that those Silicon Valley companies tend to have very good benefits. RMS.

Thank you, Robert. However, I actually am fully-functioning, you'll be glad to hear. That wasn't always the case, though. Sorry to hear you're also a fellow-sufferer. Guess we're everywhere :( But yeah, it wasn't Vintagekits that perpetrated all that harassment and nonsense (he's never commented one way or another), but User:Gold heart, who'd taken too much of an interest in me - Alison ^❤ 00:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW - that was brave of you to stand up and say that. Well done, sir. Now go - back to trolling and POV-pushing :) - Alison ^❤ 01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad; I corrected my factual mistake. I guess I got that impression from your reasons for indefinitely blocking him (not the Arbcom). My bad. As far as "trolling", if you reviewed my edits, I think you will see that I have always tried to improve the articles I edit from misspelling to syntax to dead/broken links to (other peoples') POV. Yes, POV, I am human, I have been guilty of it. But now I avoid those articles that I think are most likely to provoke me, honestly. It makes editing a much more enjoyable experience, and I understand that it is just those articles that are contested most bitterly. Also, remember (it's mnemonic): It's only POV when you don't agree (which I have certainly found to be overwhelmingly the case). Slainte, RMS

Don't mind me, I know you're not the worst! If anything, the arb case has shown the worst of POV-pushing and edit-warring on both sides of that political fence (and admins largely stuck in the middle, a target of all). Yeah, you've kept well away from the usual suspects; McQuaid, Coogan, et. al. Very wise, that :) I suppose we should all keep clear of articles we feel strongly about, and we'd all be in a lot less trouble - Alison ^❤ 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC) (BTW - I'm watching two or three of your socks right now!)

Ali:oopsI thought I was so clever; that last line has really hurt me to the core. I guess I'd better take a little Wikibreak. Still if you've only found two or three ... Yours as always, RMS

Hi Alison. Can you un-protect the above mentioned article? There is already two edit requests in the talkpage and I want to fix the refs and add some new stuff to the Sri Lanka Army#Equipment section. And also I would like to expand the bottom section of Sri Lanka Army#Regiments and training centers too. Can you un-protect it? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd rather not unprotect it as 1) nothing has been resolved since it was protected, 2) your edit is contentious and non-trivial and 3) your protected edit request was turned down on WP:RPP for the same reasons. Please discuss these changes on the talk page, work towards some consensus and I'll see about unprotecting the page - Alison ^❤ 22:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Yeah it's true that I didn't take any attempt to discuss the issue after the protection because I'm not feeding the trolls and I don't want to waste my time on them. Please have a look at this diff and then you can see from your own eyes what I'm talking about :)

2 & 3) Alison what I have to say is the you and admin who declined my edit request was wire crossed with a content dispute. Those sections were deleted due to a image copyrights issue. Even that admin deleted the main article of it and later I solved the image issue and reposted the article. Hope you get the case loud and clear :-) So can you restore those two edits now? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 07:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

75.32.36.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (the Bobby sands man guy) is playing up, with edits like this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi ONiH. While I was leaving a message on their talk page re. disruption, RKLawton went ahead and blocked them. So that's that (for the moment :) ) ... - Alison ^❤ 22:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged to both of you. I'm sure we'll be having a similar conversation about 31 hours from now..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Or possibly earlier. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise by any means, and probably not yours either, but the article does seem to be getting out of hand So take a look at Talk:Dermot Farrell and feel free to comment.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like another largely unknown Catholic cleric, largely non-notable. I'd send it to AfD and see how it goes ... - Alison ^❤ 07:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Thought about that, but if I saw it on AFD, I probably wouldn't go for a delete.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, I couldn't sleep, and anyway, I've been editing random articles, including Andreas Scholl. When I tried to use the BD template to replace the separate Category:1967 births and Category:Living persons, it messed up those categories so that Scholl is no longer listed alphabetically. Are you familiar with this template, and can you please help me? Thanks! --Kyoko 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope! Take a look at the format I used. Best to leave off the firstname, IMO. And no, I'd not seen that template before until now. Does this look okay now? - Alison ^❤ 07:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that works now. I learned of the template over at Simple, and I like the fact that it's both shorter and easier to update in the case of a person's death, if you know what you're doing. I'm still learning how to use it. Thanks for your help! --Kyoko 07:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Done - yayy!! I learnt a few new tricks there, too. Must try using that template myself - Alison ^❤ 07:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail! Love, Kyoko 07:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, various Juninho fans, you're going to have to go elsewhere to complain (plleeeaasssee not to MY talk page...) This page has been semi-protected for 24 hours, enough is too much. Use that 24 hours to read Wikipedia policies.. As the wonderful and talented ArielGold said..."hopefully they can figure out that any statements must be cited with reliable sources and not mere opinions or heresay" SirFozzie 20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

alison please help me the user alexf it cancels always the page of juninho has left little and false declarations please stop alexf and unblock juninho page for to reconstruct it thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.132.53 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for interjecting. What "false declarations" am I suppossed to have said? Care to point to any? Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

alison please Alexf it cancels most of juninho pernambucano page please unblock the page to reconstruct it, Alexf have left the things that seemed to he,pleae block Alexf and unblock the page of juninho pernambucano - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.1.89 (talk • contribs)

Given the kind of nonsense that has been going on over the last few days, and from off-wiki activity, I don't think it would be appropriate to do that. The proper thing to do at this time is to discuss the matter with Alexf on the article talk page and make your case as to why it should be changed, instead of indulging in mass-vandalism of people's user and talk pages - Alison ^❤ 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

ok but Alexf it has cancelled what it said that juninho (is one of the best freekick taker in the world) this is to real fact not my supposed, moreover has cancelled the list of freekick goal,e has cancelled that to september it has marked 33 goal with freekick this is to fact, but Alexf hates juninho and continues to eliminate all, by now it is remained only little old things please unblock juninho page I reconstruct all and then it is spoken with Alexf ok plese you soon answer because the page of juninho pernambucano now is destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.1.189 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that he is without a WP:RS is not good. I've seen Juninho take FK, and I agree he's very good, but we cannot just add information willynilly. The list of FK goals is also WP:OR. SirFozzie 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

the list of juninho freekick is absolutly real it is found at lyon siteweb and in ligue 1 siteweb juninho in seven years he scored 33 freekick with lyon team is a real fact unblock the page of juninho and and we construct it together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.1.189 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

no other player has marked more freekick in seven years it is afct no my opinion!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.1.189 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

please alison unblock the page of juninho now the page is blocked and it is destroyed please unblock now the page of juninho pernambucano

we want juninho page free now he sucks unblock the page!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babboleolr (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

... Geee, what a powerful argument for un-protecting the page.. (that's sarcasm, just in case you were wondering..) You are just proving her point for her. WORK IT OUT ON THE TALK PAGE, and when you all can edit harmoniously, then and only then will the page be unprotected. Sheesh. Also use four tildes (~) after your edit to sign your comment please. SineBot is currently smoking in a corner from overuse :) SirFozzie 17:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

we want juninho page free because it destroy

It's quite simple; find decent, reliable sources for what you are trying to say. Cite them on the talk page for all to see. Obtain agreement from other editors. Change the article. It's that simple. Bullying and intimidation will get you exactly nowhere and the article (and now its talk page) will remain protected until you learn to play nice - Alison ^❤ 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was dealing with this repeated vandalism earlier. (And before the anon editors pipe up here claiming they did not vandalize anything - yes, it is, when anon editors copy the entire content of the article onto other editor's talk pages, deleting everything they had there to replace it with this article.) And then the same anon editors and Babboleolr go on to copy the article onto the article's talk page as well. What purpose does that serve, I'm quite unclear about the point of that. However, all that being said, it seems a bit like a conundrum, since the talk page is protected, these anon and new editors cannot request changes there. Interesting dilemma. Ariel♥Gold 18:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! I don't like protecting talk pages for any reason - however, take a look at the edit history. There's nothing but disruption going on there. It's on like an 8-hour protect or thereabouts. Enough for certain people to cool off ... - Alison ^❤ 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't mean to imply I thought the protection was wrong, you'll see my name on the reverts in that history, lol. It was far more work than it was worth, and protection is perfectly valid, although I too think that's a last resort, in this case it was unavoidable. I do believe there may be a pretty severe language barrier issue at work, but hopefully they can figure out that any statements must be cited with reliable sources and not mere opinions or heresay. Well, one can hope, anyway, yes? Ariel♥Gold 18:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments on the accusations. The sockpuppets have vandalizerd Juninho's article and Talk page for days. They have vandalized my page and talk page (a total of 25 times in one day) plus also other editor's. The "best freekicker" moniker is POV and so far unsourced. As per the freekick table removal, it was not done willy-nilly but first discussed at WPF:Freekick goal history table and a small consensus was reached. The link was mentioned on the deletion edit summary. The disagreeing user is free to participate in that conversation in WikiProject:Football and state his/her case. Furthermore, if he/she wants to ask me directly and politely instead of vandalizing pages, I will offer an opinion. Case closed for me here as this page is not the proper venue for this discussion. It should be continued in the article's talk page or WikiProject:Football. Thank you. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison I tried to revert some vandalism on the Great Irish Famine article, and my changes would not appear. Don't worrie, it was genuine IP type fair. Left a message on their discussion page. Has the 1rr already kicked in? Thanks --Domer48 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been repaired.. and just so you know, Domer, you'll still be able to go beyond 1RR, just that if an admin catches ya doing it, you'll get blocked. It's not possible for the software to do that kind of thing SirFozzie 20:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Right ye be. Thanks for that Fozz. --Domer48 08:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Pls don't forget that Fozie's proposal includes a note that "This 1 Revert/Week limit does not apply to the revert of anonymous IP Edits". So you can safely revert anon-vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison. As an admin can you have a look into this post? This was an old case which was resolved once. Cheers --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 03:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your work on the article. I rewrote most of it a while ago, with rather heavy reliance on Wolff's book. That is probably why there are too few references. Keen to see a few more references for the information that is there, but from other authoritative sources. Peter Williams's book might be one, but I'm ignorant of others. Time-stressed at the moment. Tony (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, was that aimed at me? If so and you have something to say to me I'd appreciate it if you would say it to me rather than placing a random comment on a discussion on someone else's talk page that isn't relevant to the discussion taking place. If not, ignore me and have a good day. Ben W Bell talk 11:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's okay then. Sorry about that, but I have some people out there that don't much care for me and I couldn't remember ever having had a run in with you. Sorry about that. Have a good day and keep up the good work. Ben W Bell talk 12:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at some of the other "questioned" points. Improvement will continue. -- SECisek 23:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! :) - Alison ^❤ 23:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Bet you didn't expect me to write Keith Mant did you? Neither did I actually, but I came across him while looking for something else and he sounded quite interesting..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No sure if you are aware of this but the result was to delete, but User:Beano_ni has recreated the same template again here, can this be deleted or do we have to go through another Mfd for that.--Padraig 13:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as recreated material, it can just be speedily deleted per criterion G4. I've tagged it as such. — Coren ^(talk) 14:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems some of them are determined to keep them I removed this one earlier, but User:Setanta747 restored it again.--Padraig 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, could you keep an eye on this for us, , for us. I've left a post on their page, but do not think it's going to work? Thanks, --Domer48 17:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed 63 to 1. I hope that I am doing a good job so far. Bearian 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Think my userpage can withstand being unprotected? My Vandal Counter is feelin lonely. :( (And plus I may be on here less frequently as I concentrate on real life issues...) :P :) -WarthogDemon 01:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done it for you Alison. :) Acalamari 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This User talk:Frederico perrington needs to be blocked for consistent vandalism dont think the warnings will do in this case. BigDunc 10:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's cool he is blocked. BigDunc 11:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, you've got mail! :) --Kyoko 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Alison this user Sesameball it continues to cancel the page of juninho you must make something —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babboleolr (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

alison this user Sesameball it continues to cancel the page of juninho pernambucano from much time I pray to you stop him.

Hey, that's me! May I properly introduce myself? :p Sesameball (Talk | contribs); re: Juninho Pernambucano --Sesameball 09:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, could you please look at George "Ching Chong" He (talk · contribs · count), whose type of vandalistic edits look very familiar? Thanks! --Kyoko 17:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict zomg :P] Deskana got him. Good check though. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch, Kyoko :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Kyoko 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, You recently blocked User:Moneyhabit for being a sockpuppet of User:Amorrow. I think it's more likely that User:Moneyhabit is a sockpuppet of User:SallyForth123. See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_SallyForth123 for some context. What do you think? Sancho 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, I have a question for you (and Riana and Sharon too) in your mail. --Kyoko 23:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison, perhaps you can help me figure out what would be an appropriate warning for K743snx, who has now placed a POV tag on 1981 Irish hunger strike four separate times (see []) without ever offering any explanation of where said POV is to be found. He has, so far, received no warnings on his talk page. I looked in vain for a specific warning for such activity. A simple vandalism warning does not seem appropriate, but clearly he needs a "talking to," as Mr. Grady would say. Thanks, as always, for your time. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

hi Alison,

firstly my apologies for undoing the 'this article is in dispute' sign that you placed on the named article, i didnt mean to undo it and i dont know how to redo it.

also i just wanted to say that much of the article is fraudulant. i have again made some changes to it and made additional comments on the discussion page which show many of the irregularities in it, eg it states that just after a knee transplant the bishop went on a mountain climbing holiday. this is illogical since anyone who has such an operation couldnt even climb a stairs afterwards.

it is obvious that someone is using wikipedia to vent their own personal vendetta for whatever reason they see fit. however i believe that the article should not be sensationalised, but rather factual. also i would like to point out that the Bishop is now in perfect health, and i have personally witnessed this several times in the last few weeks.

truthsayer101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsayer101 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot understand your position on this. The entire section on Amnesty is from a public interview - there is not one word of editorialising or comment in it. How could someone's own words be libellous? This is ridiculous. If the entry on Gordon Brown quoted him as saying the reason he didn't call an election had nothing to do with the polls would that be slander. Please explain yourself further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theChildren (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Only back wiki-ing properly tonight (i.e. for more than 5 minutes straight) after being sorely afflicted with a 'lurgy, but Quiz Time:

Second big box down on my user page. Does that sound familiar? (It definitely sounded remarkably familiar to me.) All I can say is that the quote is definitely out of copyright. Anyone can enter, you can win points and as we all know, points mean prizes! FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an oldie. Took a while but might have it. Check your talk page! - Alison ^❤ 16:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

- (Sorry, had a slightly unexpected Wikibreak during the week - technical reasons mostly - so only getting back to you now) Yes....maybe; I shall check with the judging panel on the naming convention. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- And of course, it was from the Dublin Penny Journal from 1836. Though I'm sure you knew that... ;O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was only going by the plaque. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear!! :) - Alison ^❤ 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well "Beág" seems to be a legitimate word too but with a different meaning, but meh. He was referred to "Pat Beag/Beág" if that helps? No wonder the Irish question is so difficult... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If only someone would ever come up with the Irish Answer, we'd all be great :) - Alison ^❤ 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Beag is small but can also mean minor, which could be used for Pat Jnr. in a name.--Padraig 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what Óg is for? - Alison ^❤ 17:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See Óg is Junior so either could be used.--Padraig 17:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I have a quick translation of Jackie McMullan then please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Something like Seán Óg O Maoláin (the Óg is implied in the Jackie diminutive). Sometimes you see it as Maoileáin ... - Alison ^❤ 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well his father was called John, so with my limited understanding that means I would need the Óg? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly ... - Alison ^❤ 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm learning! Why is it "O" and not "Mac" then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tradition. "O" means "from" and "Mac" means "son of". The latter is used, all right (Macentaggart = "Mac an tSagairt" - son of the priest. McAnespie - like Aidan = "Mac an Easpaigh" - son of the bishop), etc, etc. - Alison ^❤ 16:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll notice the bluelink above, now for Relatives Action Commmittee and National H-Block/Armagh Committee. On that note I vaguely recall there's something that needs to be done if you're including a "/" in an article name, but I can't find it for toffee. Any ideas? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OOoh - neato. I'm beginning to think I'll endorse BHG's arbcom-forever proposal :) As for the slashes .... I'm not too sure either, other than knowing that the slash character is the subpage separator so there could be issues. Try making a page in your userspace and see what happens? - Alison ^❤ 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC) (keep up the good work!)

I finally found the relevant page, and it isn't a problem. I was quite perplexed to find we didn't have an article on the latter especially! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Love it! :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like! Steal them if you want :) - Alison ^❤ 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I stole them a long time ago! They rock! Ariel♥Gold 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow - you have quite the collection, and your icons are better than mine. Hmmmm - may have to do some re-stealing-back ;) - Alison ^❤ 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

DGG pointed out to me that some vandals may take the whole "happy face" thing wrong, so I re-did some of them to be more neutral, and yet friendly, but I kept the smileys for the obvious children editing (like "hi I'm rory and i'm 9 years old, my mom is mean!", so I use those. But yeah I ended up amassing quite a few templates, since I just got tired of typing the same things over and over, lol. But, what is mine, was originally yours, so "steal" away, lol. Ariel♥Gold 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow... those are... nice. Hm. Do either of you know if its possible to twiddle with twinkle settings to implement these, or do I have to ask for a feature request? Gscshoyru 21:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(files copies away, just in case he might need them when he feels like Wikiing again) SirFozzie 21:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Gscshoyru, I'm pretty sure Twinkle wouldn't implement them, and I don't know of a way you can force it to (although that isn't to say there isn't a way to do it). They are not official templates so I doubt that Aza would add them as options. There are situations that definitely warrant the standard templates, I normally use mine for the special situations, sometimes for first and final warnings, or for obvious children editors. But I don't use them 100% of the time, as it makes it more difficult for administrators to know how many of what level warnings have been given. Still, a lot of them are useful, for instance when an obviously good faith editor creates an article that's not quite notable, or one that they may have a COI with, Spam, etc., there are a lot of policies that new editors simply don't know about, and I just wanted a way to explain things a little more in-depth than the default templates did in those situations. Ariel♥Gold 23:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, I've sent you a message too. --Kyoko 06:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I did too, btw. SirFozzie 15:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And another about Veropedia. --Kyoko 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I owe you a long email. Like, a really long one :) - Alison ^❤ 16:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've sent you a probably-longer-than-expected message about related matters. --Kyoko 01:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alison, just wanted to check in and see how you're doing. Wikiburnout at all? For me, I've been taking solace in my new discovery of AWB and fixing typos and links to disambigs to my heart's content. I find it strangely calming and relaxing! :P Hope all is well, *hugs*, ~Eliz81 ^(C) 16:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I've noticed that you've been extreeeeeemely busy. Can you pmail me when you get the chance, please? Tks ;) - Alison ^❤ 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done and done :) ~Eliz81 ^(C) 21:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at the Staunton vandalism, glad to hear that user IP has been banned [Edit - I mean blocked, of course]. Belacqua Shuah 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Alison, first off: I could fall in love with you from your lovely page design and your cute picture and your biting! The reason I came here is that I would like to edit the pedophilia article. I want to fix the broken Bernard 1982 reference, add the term teleiophilia to the related terms section and insert a new section on the causes of pedophilia since I have found three interesting scientific articles that should be noted. Unfortunately, the page is still protected by you since the latest edit war. Can you please lift the ban? Cheers: Roman Czyborra 10:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like the pic :) Unfortunately, I can't lift the page protection at this time as the article was subject to intense revert-warring and, from the talk page, has yet to be resolved. As your edits seem non-controversial, maybe put an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page and state what you'd like to do. Another admin will then evaluate it and make the changes for you! It should be reasonably quick-and-easy - Alison ^❤ 12:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can lift the page protection! The discussion on the talk page has long silenced and the warriors have apparently lost interest in their warfare. {{editprotected}} isn't an option for me as I want to collect mainspace article count in order to become entitled to participate in elections. Please unprotect the page! Roman Czyborra 09:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected - Ok - it's done. Two months is more than enough - Alison ^❤ 09:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest before you fall in love with Roman, you have a good look at him, and his pic, on his user page, and then delete him fast! Giano 09:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Giano - Alison ^❤ 09:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind help. Of course you are not obliged to fall in love with me, but I beg to not be deleted ☺ Roman Czyborra 09:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I know it's mostly school kids doing class projects who muck around with those insect-related pages, and not malicious vandalism, but it really gets to be too much. Thanks for the help. Dyanega 18:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) - Alison ^❤ 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For blocking that vandal for me. It's so annoying when it's your talk page and the orange bar keeps popping up... no more time snakes I say ~Eliz81 ^(C) 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep! Got yout mail, BTW. Will write later. Do you have irc, by any chance? - Alison ^❤ 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes ma'am! Same name, same game. *pops online* ~Eliz81^(C) 19:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  - O, umm, err, was that just a general question? Just drop me a line whenever you'd like to chat ;) ~Eliz81 ^(C) 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved party to the content dispute/whatever it is at Skin (Japanese band) (I had never heard of this band before today). I just noticed that it has been fully protected for nearly a month and a half. Perhaps unprotection might be a good idea? The editors there haven't even touched the talk page for over 3 weeks. Axem Titanium 01:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected - there had been a war over the name and how it relates to the name on the associated article on the Japanese wiki. One editor had begun socking over the issue - Alison ^❤ 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Archive 15!
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started! Hiberniantears 18:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I must be tired, because I sorta find him amusing in a sort of way. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 05:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I'm actually in bed typing this :) I'm on my phone, which is a bit sad! - Alison ^❤ 05:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I blinked and missed the whole conversation. But thanks for handling it you guys. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 05:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You have leet SMS skillz if you can edit articles with a phone! :-) — Coren ^(talk) 05:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It's all about the touch screen ;) - Alison ^❤ 05:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I got into several edit conflicts with you Alison when I was trying to explain the WP:USER thing to him :) Ksy92003(talk) 06:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You state at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 13 that I am a banned editor. Why do you say that? I have never been banned. What gave you that idea? Are you just being careless? Sam Sloan 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 04:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise :) - Alison ^❤ 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am doing a class project and I was wondering if you could take a look at my article and tell me what you think. My article is titled cultivator. Thank you very much. --Ghmd 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)ghmd

Hi there! I think you've done a super job on that article. Well done indeed! I just went over it and did some minor tidying on it, but it looks great :) Keep up the good work - Alison ^❤ 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.--Ghmd 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For looking into the reversion problem on the LGBT articles. On behalf of everyone who has been affected.....File:Kissing.jpg Jeffpw 16:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I ran across this page on NPP, and I can't for the life of me figure out what CSD tag would be appropriate, lol. Can you take care of it? Ariel♥Gold 22:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL Dang you're fast! Ariel♥Gold 22:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Way ahead of ya! :) - Alison ^❤ 23:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you rock, thank you! Ariel♥Gold 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zilla3 Seems to have something of an obsession with O RLY (internet slang), and is constantly vandalizing the articles related to Orly (the place in Paris). I RLY (geddit? :p) think he needs a ban. A-Nottingham | Talk 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit early for blocksville, but they've been final-warned now - Alison ^❤ 17:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

SRSLY? You're getting soft in your.. (realizes how much doom he would bring upon himself by saying anything like old age).. your time in WP, Ali... :D (sics a Rust Monster on the Bleeping Sinebot.. SirFozzie 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

SRSLY!! ZOMG!!WTF??? - Alison ^❤ 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To ensure this gets put to bed once and for all, I have requested explicit clarification from ArbCom. My concern is that an ambiguously worded proposal does pass (or even does not pass) and we are then left with differing interpretations on what ArbCom said on the issue and end up back at square one. Vk has requested I not post on his talk page, so I am not going to notify him. If, in the unlikely event he doesn't spot my request, could you draw his attention to it as it is only fair he be aware. Thanks, and I hope you are well. Rockpocket 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like clarification came through from Fred, so that settles that. I'm not averse to whatever solution ArbCom comes up with - so long as it works, I don't mind and as long as the way forward is clearly defined - Alison ^❤ 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The sooner it's over, the sooner we move forward (and the sooner we admins can step back :) SirFozzie 16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now I don't think there can be any argument about what that the decision of the Arbitrator's are with that proposal, whether it passes or not. My attitude is softening with time too. If Vk is willing to stick around over all this time and (more or less) adhere to his restriction, then its perhaps not unreasonable to think that this process will have given him enough of a kick up the backside for him to change his behaviour. And that goes for the other participants too. Whatever ArbCom decides, I just hope it is adhered to and works. Rockpocket 16:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, on a RC Patrol a few days ago, I saw the following article created: Diabetes and heredity. It's a TOTAL mess. It reads mostly like a term paper, its loaded with original research, it mainly references other Wikipedia pages. Since the Diabetes mellitus article already covered ALL of the relevent information quite well, I redirected the page to Diabetes mellitus#Genetics. My redirection was reverted twice. Now, the article has the POTENTIAL to be a worthwhile article, and the person who created the article is determined to keep their own text there (WP:OWN anyone). If we're going to keep the article, we might as well have a GOOD article about the subject. I saw that you were listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants list as an endocrinology person and I thought of asking you to take a look at this article and see what you think, since 1) it seems to match your interest 2) I know NOTHING about this subject 3) I knew you from working with you at Wikipedia before and 4) (most importantly) your name was first on the list. Could you please see what, in your opinion, can be done with the article Diabetes and heredity? I would not be averse to cleanup, and was only doing the redirect since the article was a mess, and I know nothing about the subject... Thanks a bunch! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can argue ONiH into staying.. or make it a condition of the ArbCom case closing that he has to stay ;) SirFozzie 18:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful. Martin Meehan becomes "Mairtin Meehan" I think? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We can never force anyone to stay, especially as we are all volunteers. Interesting that VK looks likely to be able to edit again, and subject to the same rules as other mentioned editors so the whole thing has been worthwhile, IMO, SqueakBox 22:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, I'm not sure anything has been achieved that will help combat the problem. The trend at the moment seems to suggest that the only remedies that are going to pass are:

The indefinite ban on Vintagekits is lifted and he may edit normally under the terms of probation.

Any users who join in the edit warring over the set of articles in question may be placed under the provisions of these remedies by any uninvolved administrator placing a notice on their talk page

Nothing else looks like it is going to pass. So, unless another proposal is made that they can agree on, we are left with those. So here is my problem - there are no terms of probation agreed upon by ArbCom and there are no provisions of these remedies to place others under. So we have two props that place VK, specifically, and any other edit warrior under... what? WP:1RR? But there is no agreed on remedy that says that. What we need, at the very least, is a prop that agrees what the probation consists of. If we don't get this ArbCom has achieved nothing other than to put another gladiatorial editor back in the ring with no tools, authority or restrictions to curb his - or everyone elses - poor behaviour (should it continue). My other concern is the "any uninvolved administrator" line. Most of the participants have been doing their best to argue that all the admins in the case are "involved" in some way. And we are listed as "involved participants" Therefore if this is not clarified, does it mean that myself, Fozzie, Alison, BHG, Tyrenius cannot place editors under these provisions (which don't exist anyway)? If so, then we are screwed, because there are no other admins who oversee these articles. I am genuinely concerned that this case is going to close as is and potentially make matters worse, rather than better. Rockpocket 23:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

....about the translation then please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It has all just turned into one huge waste of time. I wouldn't have believed at the outset that a process involving so many thousands of words could run into the ground like this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I would... Aren't you supposed to be the Parliament/Dail expert? — iridescent 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd hope for higher standards of problem-solving than displayed at Westminster and/or Leinster House, and in any case arbcom's role is more akin to that of a tribunal or court. This has turned into something more like the Tribunal of inquiry into the beef industry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a waste of time to me at all, if the remedies are passed the situation will be easier to control, and it should help better the boxing section (not to mention the return of ONIH), SqueakBox 20:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help getting the impression that ArbCom were overwhelmed by the extent and scope of the mess brought before them and, unable or unwilling to really deal with the individual behaviour of over 10 individuals, across an number of articles over many months. Instead it is easier to tick everyone off, put all editors back on a level playing field under slightly restricted provisions, and then leave the administrators to sort it out. That wouldn't be so bad, except in doing so they have essentially dismissed the efforts of the admins to do just that over the last 6 months. I find it somewhat discouraging that some recommendations, shared by almost all the admins involved, were overlooked in certain instances. It leaves me wondering how we are supposed to use our judgment with any confidence in future, when our prior judgment - which appeared to be shared and in adherence with policy - was not endorsed by ArbCom, or even completely over-ruled. I only hope that the fact all this came out on one place will encourage individuals to reconsider their editing. That is, the very fact we had an ArbCom case will be more influential on individuals behaviour than the remedies will be in stopping it. Because if the usual suspects carry on where they left off, I think we are back to square one. Rockpocket 00:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification of arbcom's use of the term "uninvolved admin". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You've previously warned this user about making changes without discussion. This user continues to edit and make changes to Template:{{LGBT sidebar}} and has been asked to stop. Could you block the user from editing this template? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Template:LGBT sidebar -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lara bran has not edited in days. However, your message crossed with my leaving a message on their talk page. It certainly doesn't warrant a block at this time, however, they're being seriously disruptive and if it keeps up, they will be blocked. See how it goes and let me know if they keep at it - Alison ^❤ 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by not edited in days as yesterday and today, his edits to the LGBT template have been reverted and discussed. ? Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

They appear to have stopped for the moment. However, what was this edit all about??? When they return, if this behaviour keeps up without any dialogue, I'll probably take action. Not right now, though - Alison ^❤ 20:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

re: that edit, he added transsexuality when transgender was already there. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 20:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that people have edit-warred over the differences in the past, but the removal of Intersexuality?? - Alison ^❤ 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a discussion going on about Intersexuality since it's a medical condition and not a sexual orientation.. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

True indeed, but it does tend to get lumped in under the LGBTIQ ever-widening umbrella. Then again, there are those who believe that TSuality is a physiological condition; a view, BTW, which I don't share. I have a family member who's TS, so there's my POV :) - Alison ^❤ 03:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems someone else now want to start edit warring of this issue this template was created to avoid the protection on Template:Northern Ireland cities and to add the Ulster Banner and was nominated for deletion were it was decided to make it a redirect, can you ask him to stop this is not the first time in the past week he has tried to add the flag to articles, maybe he can be added to the arbcom.--Padraig 02:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Template has now been deleted per WP:CSD#G4, as a recreation of previously deleted material. As a courtesy, I've created a redir to the current template and fully-protected the redir. This has to be one of the more inane revert-wars yet on flags and templates - Alison ^❤ 03:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Even Unionist politicans say so, and they also say the Ulster Banner isn't the flag of Northern Ireland as well! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, Hackney. Stop that!! There's absolutely no need to go along inserting facts like that. Some people don't like it - Alison ^❤ 03:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

He also added the Ulster Banner to this but I reverted it, he also tried to remove the WP:Flag example about use of the Ulster Banner.--Padraig 03:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Silly flag-wars. We're all sick of them. I've left a message on his talk page but if he continues the way he is, he'll come under the jurisdiction of the ArbCom case, even if it's been closed - Alison ^❤ 03:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the ArbCom case that seems to have lost its teeth somewhere along the way. Still, there's been plenty of productive editing as a result of it and yet another "did you know" earlier today and another to follow shortly *basks* One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow!! Congratulations yet again! :) You do know that you'd better not leave once this toothless, lame-duck ArbCom case ends? We need someone to do the work while all the others throw rocks at each other. So like NI in so many ways, really ... - Alison ^❤ 03:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you. Four of the last six articles I've written made DYK, and assuming that the man who "participated in a battle that killed only a prized pig, escaped from prison covered in butter, and was given the last rites four times" makes DYK (which seems likely!) it'll be five out of seven. I might have to stick around for a few extra days to finish the few more articles I had planned, but no longer than that sadly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pah, they picked a dull DYK hook for the article :( One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Awwww :( And they had so much choice - Alison ^❤ 10:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Still that's three IRA members on the main page in the space of four days, it's practically Provisional Wikipedia! I can just imagine someone choking on their bratwurst in disgust.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison: don't you find it ironic that you talk of your disgust of "rock throwers" and "flag warriors", and yet you seem to be the champion of at least two of them - one of whom has just shown you their obvious POV by boasting about how many IRA members (surely that should read "volunteers", eh?) have been on the "main space" in four days?

Perhaps you, blinded as you seem to be by your little fan club who come running to you every time somebody upsets their little campaign to remove the flag of Northern Ireland from Wikipedia, you have somehow failed to notice the work that others have put into Wikipedia - and not just to members of terrorist organisations either. --Mal 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to assume a little good faith on the part of myself and others? Out of interest, what do you think of this article? it would seem that not everyone is a POV-pusher around here. BTW, I've got 'fans' on both sides of this inane little battle. The editor in question above knows well my feelings on the Provisional IRA and their ilk; it's one of the reasons I don't edit those kind of articles if I can help it. Getting vilified from both sides is most gratifying, have to say - Alison ^❤ 00:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah, you... you're suspect gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 06:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghabh mo leithscéal? What have I done now? - Alison ^❤ 06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, a dlúthchara. Is minic a chealg briathra míne cailín críonna. Ná gasúr b'fhéidir? Haha, what a joke gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 06:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon?? I'm totally lost here. When was I lead astray? Pmail me if you like .... - Alison ^❤ 06:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosca poist gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maith agat. Fuair liom é, cupla noimead ó shin. Tá saghas freagar agatsa anois - Alison ^❤ 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison, could you please answerthe e-mail I sent you? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Which one? Can you mail me again - my other address, not the wiki one. I don't think I got the last message - Alison ^❤ 17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you dig up the article List of counterculture films and send it to me by email? Thank you! I will only use it for personal purpose, not re-creating it on Wikipedia. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Done :) - Alison ^❤ 04:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, I've sent you an administrative question in e-mail for understandable reasons. Love, Kyoko 00:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kyoko :) Agreed with your message. Done - Alison ^❤ 04:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

More testing fun, minus lolcats. I just can't anymore. How's it goin wichoo? :) ~Eliz81 ^(C) 05:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Heyya - saw your hard work over yonder. Keep up the good work! Fun, isn't it ;) - Alison ^❤ (just popped in for a minute)

SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 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 their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey, it's a cookie party. Sasha has received one and sent one, The Hybrid sent two, and I sent ~~two~~ one; one was removed. Let's all get together and have a little iFiesta de las Galletas! Ksy92003(talk) 05:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oooh - nyomz! - Alison ^❤ 06:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Chomp! Mmm.... Thanks... chomp... for the cookie! --Kyoko 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this edit When a cure for dyslexia is invented then you have the write to piss take, until that happy day shut the fuck up, or at least hang on to the insults. Giano 11:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Giano. I don't know what came over me. Please forgive me. And yes, I do hope a cure is found for your affliction. - Alison ^❤ 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done here . It's a bit out of the usual fair. --Domer48 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Domer. That's pretty rough :( I'm not sure what more can be done, though, as they've been warned twice already for doing that. If it happens again, they will be blocked from editing - Alison ^❤ 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ye I noticed that after I had posted your page. Thanks anyhow. Regards --Domer48 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He is at it here again. BigDunc 21:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That thing we discussed is going rather ok, there's been a few rollercoaster moments, but all is generally well. Still only checking in online every so often, but I'll keep an eye on my email. :) SirFozzie 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear that, Foz. Keep in touch, you know where I am. I'll email ya later - Alison ^❤ 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, thanks for setting up things over there. I've left a question for you there too. --Kyoko 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ali-oops: Please protect the above article due to repeated vandalism by anonymous IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.3.161 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done - It's not too bad, but isn't being cleared fast enough. .... Robert? - Alison ^❤ 00:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Explained in e-mail. --Kyoko 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

eek, false alarm. I'm very sorry about my mistake. My other requests over there still stand, though. Thanks. --Kyoko 06:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've just fully protected your userpage over there as I had a temporary 'crat bit this morning ;) - Alison ^❤ 18:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maith agat, Alison. What would I do without you? Tá riomhpost agat. <3 --Kyoko 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you HAVE to semi-protect? I have been missing the Swiftian cut and thrust of recent change patrolling since I took a break last week. Making up for lost time. (Kidding. Actually I think it's mid-term break all over the world tonight) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Something in your inbox ASAP. You too, Riana, if you would. Thanks. --Kyoko 08:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

it's all kinds of awesome, and verofied ;) ~Eliz81 ^(C) 09:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

~*Sigh*~ I wish I could figure out how to work Veropedia. I have been trying for days and days to get my GA article uploaded, and it always tells me there are 36 cleanup tags on the page (of course, there are not) and it tells me that there are mis-spelled words (there aren't, and it doesn't tell me any words, it just says there are spelling errors) and it won't let me upload it. It also balks because there are two "it's" and one "don't", but they are both in quotations, so cannot be changed. I've pretty much given up, as I honestly can't figure out how the heck to get an article uploaded.

Ariel♥Gold 09:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Took me a ton of tries too. Kept finding periods in the wrong place and stuff. Some 'errors' it will let you slide by with, but any cleanup tags on the page will be problematic. Which article is it, I can try to help ~Eliz81 ^(C) 09:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no cleanup tags whatsoever, it is a completely finished article, Jay Barbree, but I cannot figure out why it says there are 36 freaking cleanup tags! And it won't let the article have the quotations containing it's and don't, but you cannot change someone's words, so I can't fix them. You can take a look, but don't upload it, because I want to figure out what the problem is, not have someone just do it for me, or else it won't help me any, lol. Ariel♥Gold 10:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just takes practice :) --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't help me figure out how I could have done it, or what I was doing wrong, lol, but thanks. ~*Sigh*~ There are no helpful instructions on what was going wrong. Now I'll have to find another article to try it with, lol Ariel♥Gold 10:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

DarkFalls, how about you explain how that worked, b/c I couldn't get it to, and Ariel should get to know what to do! Ariel, FWIW, there weren't 36 templates on there you needed fixed. Any problems in those giant lists (like, links to disambig pages) are bolded. All your giant lists were bold-free. 80 edit conflicts later... ~Eliz81 ^(C) 10:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It still kept telling me I had multiple issues, and gave me no possible way to upload the article, but didn't tell me what to fix. That's what I was frustrated with, lol. Ariel♥Gold 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried your other GA, and the fair use image in that seems to be the only problem. DF, cmon, tell us how you did it! ~Eliz81 ^(C) 10:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Striking all, I guess I don't know which other GA you mean, lol. Ariel♥Gold 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)thumbnail|This one, from On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Looks like it's missing fair use rationale. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 10:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't upload that. Ariel♥Gold 10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But if you add fair use rationale, maybe it can get uploaded to vero? Or maybe all fair use images are out of the question. Sorry I wish I knew what happened with the Jay B. one. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 10:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, would have been nice to know what I was doing wrong, lol. Ariel♥Gold 10:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Veropedia kicks all fair use images. Plez remove before you bring the database down and cause Eagle 101 a headache ;) And as for the uploading magic, a magician never reveals his secrets :p (Seriously, ask Allie...I didn't know why the parser filtered Category:Living people...) --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just figured that one out, I did manage to get George Schaller uploaded after removing that category, cool! Finally I did one, lol. YAY ME! Ariel♥Gold 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ArielGold, if you have not figured it out, or would like some help, feel free to stop on IRC and we can figure out where you are going wrong... I'm not all that great as far as the user end of things... /me glances at Mrs. Apple over there... Anyway we have a CGI gateway to our IRC channel at http://en.veropedia.com/irc/irc.cgi. Cheers! and best of luck. P.S. Ariel if you are on IRC and I don't see you, just ping Eagle_101 (just say my name in channel). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reluctance to semi-protect my talk page. Though, as I point out, that would keep out the one-off vandals, but allow genuine editors. Runtshit is indeed "still at it". By my count, he has so far established over 290 IDs, and has made 1250 abusive edits to 260 articles. His latest tactic seems to be to post attacks on random talk pages, presumably in the hope that they wwon't be found and removed. Can't we do anything to stop him? RolandR 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know Alison, I responded on my talk page. Acalamari 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiThanks

It's done. Thank you so much for telling me. If it's not too much to ask, next time you get the chance would you mind translating the contents of my user and page on the Irish Wikipedia into Gaelic (I think it's Gaelic?) please? Thank you. Acalamari 18:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, it's "Irish", not Gaelic. Calling the Irish language "Gaelic" is like calling the Spanish language "Espanyol" or the French language "Fransayse". Cheers mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks: I didn't know exactly what it was called. Acalamari 19:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this editor User talk:170.185.144.19 vandalim on Spanish-American War have asked him twice to stop but dont think he will thanks. I asked BHG to have a look last night he is doing the same again tonight on the same article thanks. BigDunc 21:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Alison, I would like help understanding why you would deny my request for a semi-protect on the page. My reasons for making the request were as follows:

Since the September 21 (at least, I did not look further)
I have been making steady vandalism warnings since September 26; that is almost a month of consistent vandalism by Anons.
This should not be a high traffic article; most people have not a clue about who he is and for this specific article, relative to his notoriety, to get this much vandalism is perplexing. Why this specific article?
The type of vandalism is common to the immature and jeuvenile; I suspect it is a fad and a semi-protect woudl ensure that it is only a fad.
Since July 1, 2007 there has been very little editing to this article; by far the most editing has only been vandalism.

I may be wrong, which is highly likely, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain a public encyclopedia. Denying Anon's to edit an article for a short period, especially an article that is not typical for every day use, does not present a major inconvenience to readers or users as a whole. I would be curious in gaining a better understanding of this policy and your reasonsing. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, the vandalism is *not* all that bad, by usual standards. I'm reluctant to block out anon editors (which, in fairness, are editors of equal standing to you and me. Login is optional) on such a low level of abuse. According to the founding principles, this is the "encyclopedia than anyone can edit", and we have to respect that yet maintain a balance. The above article is a bit of a target due to the school season being in again and classes of schoolkids take the opportunity to play about with articles like those - Alison ^❤ 08:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your sharing your views. As an aside, I agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but editing is not a right; it is a privilege. As such, that privilege is forfeited when individual behavior violates the policies of Wikipedia. Our policies for Anons is appropriate because it normally provides a time that the editor can learn that her/his efforts unacceptable through repeated warnings. However, in the case of protecting articles, I guess I might be a bit more liberal in my views. I suspect that you would prefer to see a high number of incidents of vandalism in a given day to issue a protect, rather than a few edits on a daily basis over a long period. For me, vandalism is not the norm; it is the exception. As such, if an article is vandalized repeatedly over any time period short periods of protection are appropriate. Well, I have babbled on for too long. I appreciate your thoughts and your decision. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, it appears warrnings are having no effect . With comments like this, and then , it's obvious they are not about improving articles, but simply out to cause offence! Surly something can be done? --Domer48 07:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for gross incivility. Comments like that are uncalled-for - Alison ^❤ 08:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. No attempt to have a reasonable discussion. Thanks --Domer48 12:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison. The article was low intensity, but high-controversy. It's been the biggest single issue in Australian politics for nearly 2 years now. And I had reason to suspect that Joe Hockey's ministerial staff were watching the article and taking opportunities to subtly whitewash. Given the high importance of the article overall, POV-inserting like this would likely gain unfavourable attention if left to remain for long periods. Slac speak up! 08:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, I've been Verofied by this guy. Now I just need to figure out how to do anything there. Love, Kyoko 12:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yayy!!! Excellent. I think you'll like it :) Try hopping onto irc if you can as that's a really useful source of help - Alison ^❤ 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (owe ya an email)

Hi Alison, a copy of my mail to Riana should be in your inbox. I have many ideas and opinions about VP and how to improve it. I still like copyediting and plan to do more here than there, but I'll help there too. --Kyoko 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I've figured out how to upload articles. When you can, please take a look at what I have uploaded so far and tell me if I am doing something wrong. Now that I have learned how to upload, I think I might write a help page for that. Love, Kyoko 05:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo!!! I love Bach :) And yes, that article looks super! Excellent job indeed. The two transplantation articles also look great. Well done! - Alison ^❤ 05:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, especially because I wrote the original articles on lung transplants. They're not entirely finished, but I have a whole stack of references that I don't feel like looking at after so many months away. Please let me know what you think of my ideas in my mail, OK? Thanks. --Kyoko 05:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep - will do, soon as I get the chance. BTW - I've some other stuff going on here :) Are you ever on IRC by any chance? - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, reasons explained in mail, sorry. --Kyoko 05:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, is back to messing with {{LGBT sidebar}}. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison can you please "fix" User talk:SeeYouNextTuesday999 from further disruptive editing. Burntsauce 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla's already got it :) - Alison ^❤ 18:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it OK to upload something with red links, or is it better to just wait. Thanks, Kyoko 11:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's okay to upload redlinked articles, so long as the article is high quality. If it's totally full of red links - maybe not! - Alison ^❤ 15:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How long did you want to protect this page for, because you unprotected it by mistake? :) I set it for a week, though you're welcome to change it. Acalamari 16:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gah! I need to pay more attention. Thanks for that :) - Alison ^❤ 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Since you said two weeks on RFPP, I'll extend my protection by another week to avoid the appearance of wheel-warring if you like. Acalamari 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you like will work for me :) Feel free to scrub or edit my comment on RPP. Whatever's easy ;) - Alison ^❤ 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison, you may want to try extending the protection; I keep getting an error. Acalamari 17:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Getting a database error. Not to worry, though, because your prot is active - Alison ^❤ 17:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've done it now. It's fixed. :) Acalamari 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thought it hasn't been discussed much, the previous reverter stopped reverting the unprotected Twelver template, so I think it might be safe to unprotect this one as well. Tell me any concerns you might have about that. The only active non-banned person involved in that template, Sa.vakilian, upon me asking what we could do to improve it and get it unprotected replied "Salam. I think I will be a good tewmplate (sic) if you remove Theology of Twelvers." There doesn't seem much more to discuss on that frontier, at least for now. Thanks for all your help and concern in this area. --Enzuru 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected - good idea. It's been over three months now. Thanks for the message - Alison ^❤ 18:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, even more mail for you to reply to! --Kyoko 03:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for tackling this: :) Into The Fray ^T/C 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don´t remember if I finally sent you this message... Anyway if I did I´m really sorry. this is only to tell you that I have nominated this article for FA, and maybe you`ll feel like taking a look at it and supporting the nomination. Thanks anyway. Bests. --Garrondo 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison, I've sent you a couple of e-mails, but no response. Let me know if I'm barking up the wrong tree. Rklawton 15:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

HI there :) I just got the one yesterday. Have a backlog @ the moment but will reply later. Got lots to say - Alison ^❤ 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alison. Just stopped by to say Hi. Hi! Amit@Talk 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh hi, Amit! Lovely to see you still about. I still feel awful about blocking you that time but am glad it all worked out for you - Alison ^❤ 07:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

	Thanks Alison/Archive 15
	I would like to thank you for your participation in my successful RfA, which passed with a tally of (44/10/5)^[1]. Whether you supported, opposed or were neutral in my RfA, I appreciate your participation and I hope that we can continue to work together to build a stronger and better Wikipedia.
	Regards, nat^tang 04:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL

Sneaky

Checkuser request

External links

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ICCLlogo.gif

This one looks familiar

Vicífhoclóir

my content

Page for deletion

Email request

Is it friday yet?

Gift

protection request

Wi-fi

*snork*

Mayhem indeed...

Orange institution

Here We Go Again

could you check this out

RMS?

Thanks! :D

Not even subtle

Be an angel

Yoo hooo

Astronaut

You totally deserve this one!

Rocket references removal

Bridget (given name)

Sometimes they come back

Div tag

Deleted page

WP:RFPP.

79.8.128.8&nbsp;(talk&nbsp;· contribs)

Knock, knock

An unprotection

Depression

Sri Lanka Army

Might be time for a hammering

Request for comment

BD template question

mail

juninho page

Could you check this thanks

ANI

Bach

Comment

Elizabeth I

Equal opportunity article writer

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia (2nd nomination)

Could you check this out

Bearian's RfA

Unprotection?

Frederico perrington

mail

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Help

possible sock?

Moneyhabit

I have a question for you

An appropriate warning...

John Magee (Bishop) Article

Donal McKeown

Quiz time!

You sure?

Vandalism warning

mail

Hi&nbsp;:)

Stevie S

pedophilia page protection

thanks

Thanks!

Skin (Japanese band) page protection

RfA Thanks

Edit conflicts.

Why do you say that I am a "banned editor"?

Hello, Alison

Help with class project

My sincere thanks

Hrmmm, you still around, dear Alison?

Vandal Alert!

snork

79.8.128.8 (talk · contribs)

Hi :)