User talk:Alison/Archive 32

Welcome back
"Ya outta be in pictures, ya beautiful to see". Welcome back to the land of Wikia, Alison. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GoodDay :) - A l is o n  ❤ 08:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Mail
Hello Alison, I've sent you mail! Looking forward to your response. --Whoosit (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied - A l is o n  ❤ 08:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Welcome Back!
Glad to see your back, and will be contributing and helping wikipedia for the better. Once again Welcome Back! House1090 (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Awww - thanks, House! Glad to see you're around too (and not banned again! :) ) - A l is o n  ❤ 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha yea I doing a lot better now, thanks, and I'm really glad to see you back! House1090 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ablazev continuing on cadmium telluride photovoltaics
Hi, three days ago you temporarily blocked for repeatedly inserting a rant into cadmium telluride photovoltaics. Since the block ended, he or she has re-inserted the rant twice more, and. Maybe another block is called for? Thanks! --Steve (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked: 3 days (talk · contribs). - *sigh* - yes, it's the exact same again, without a shred of dialog. Can you post something to their talk page and try to get them into discussion? - A l is o n  ❤ 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis
I noticed you put a template on and forgot to subst, depsite the BIG RED WARNING telling you so. Could you please fix? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thanks for letting me know. BTW - last year, when that template was added, it didn't have the BIG RED WARNING on it when it wasn't subst'd. Jes' sayin' ... :) - A l is o n  ❤ 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

John Vincent Atanasoff protect decline
Really? Four intentional disruptions is insufficient? Basically, we have a small cadre of editors who only work on Bulgaria-related topics who have declared that they're out to edit war on this one point. I think it's deserving of the temp lock. Either that or there ought to be some sort of admin warning to the editors' talk pages. Robert K S (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Commented on WP:RPP - A l is o n  ❤ 06:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm not satisfied that you've understood the issue involved and the problem at hand. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's obvious you're not satisfied. However, your behaviour with the rollback button and your resolve to simply revert all edits is not the way to go about resolving this. I've commented on the talk page, but I've no desire to get involved in content disputes such as this - A l is o n  ❤ 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the use of rollback, frankly, Alison, I disagree. This is not a dispute between two reasonable minds. This is a vandalistic alteration of an article by a party seeking to promote an agenda. If this isn't clear to you, I'd like you to take the time to examine the talk thread I pointed you to, and the edit contributions of Monshuai, and the edit history of the article. Would you mind inviting a couple of other administrators to take a look at this as well? This is not a content dispute--would you mind justifying that conclusion? Robert K S (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One could argue over who the 'reasonable minds' applies to above. I'll reiterate; don't use rollback for anything other than blatant vandalism and never use it in a content dispute (or even a disputed-dispute :) ). Do so and I'll remove the privilege - A l is o n  ❤ 00:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And as for the issue you refer to above, I'm seeing reasoned debate on the talk page (yes, I read it) on both sides of the dispute here. As I said before, WP:DR should be your first port of call. I'm not going to agree to fully protect the article for a number of reasons; 1) it's largely a content dispute, 2) there's nowhere near enough disruption to warrant full-prot (tho' you're getting there with your rollback use) and 3) I refuse to lock out other editors on account of a dispute between one or two editors while dialog is still ongoing on the talk page - A l is o n  ❤ 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm disappointed. Your response is neglectful of the problem and, frankly, disconcerting, since you haven't evinced any analysis of the issue.  That is to say, you haven't addressed the guideline I referred you to, and how the two positions relate to that guideline.  Instead, you've slapped one of the parties on the wrist and called it a day.  I'm not the only editor who has reverted Monshuai on this issue in the last day or two.  Even if I left the article alone, the reverts would persist--Monshuai is admittedly motivated by national pride rather than article improvement and is expressly intent on forcing this edit by brute force.  I would have thought that the least you could do is take the steps I've asked you to take as an admin to resolve the dispute.  (I've never heard an admin say that DR should be the first port of call--it's usually the last resort.) Robert K S (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I find your lack of good faith in me ... disconcerting. Firstly, you are the only one in this dispute (yes, dispute) who's being abusive with the rollback button. Secondly, I see all editors in dialog here. I don't care what the other guy's motivations are (I cannot know everyone's on the project) but all I can judge on is whether the edits are NPOV and are within the guidelines. Which, IMO, they are. You disagree, however. The steps you've asked me to take to 'resolve' this is to apply full protection to the article, so you can largely walk away. I refused as I see that to be inappropriate here - A l is o n  ❤ 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in walking away, and I fully expect that that once the temp block is lifted, Monshuai's edits will resume. I was merely taking what I believed to be the proper course of action given the edit war.  If you don't think I was taking the proper course of action, then I ask that you tell me what to do.  Telling Monshuai and I to resolve the problem amongst ourselves, like a kindergarten teacher pulling two toddlers aside, is not a solution--it should already be evident that Monshuai has one position, which is, if not supported, is at least not opposed by one other editor, whereas I and several other editors are on the other side of the issue.  When an editor in good faith takes steps to bring administration into a problem, it's unhelpful when administration ignores the problem but lashes out at the editors involved.  Most of the steps in DR do not apply here.  The two parties already find themselves in intractable positions.  A third opinion is unnecessary since there are third and fourth and fifth opinions already.  So, if you're unwilling to mediate the problem, what should I do next?  Finally, your continuing administrative warnings to me, in absence of continuing edits on my part, are misplaced, as is the angry tone.  I used rollback once here, in a manner that I believed to be totally consistent with the appropriate use of that function as an expedient against vandalism.  You gave me a warning.  I haven't used it again, nor have I even edited the article again.  And yet you've seen fit to issue two further warnings against me, as if I am presenting an irrepressible problem or as if I am functioning as an irresponsible editor.  Why?  You do my reputation an injustice. Robert K S (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you've abused Rollback twice now on the Atanasoff article. Not once. Also, as you now admit, full-protect is inappropriate here. Now what is appropriate is that edit-warriors be warned that they'll be blocked for disruption. You'll not that Monshuai has now been final-warned by myself and is at the traditional 3RR limit. If s/he reverts one more time, I'll block their account. You'll note that you've not been similarly warned (yet). Note also that there is at least one other editor who disagrees with the position you're taking on this, although User:Bielle seems to concur with your perspective. In short; it's a content dispute and there are numerous editors involved. You all need to resolve this on the talk page and come to some consensus on the issue. If then, Monshuai decides to edit-war against consensus, they'll be blocked, or if they exceed 3RR. Fully protecting the article (esp. to 'your' revision) is not going to work. If I fully protect an article in the case of an intense dispute, I protect on an arbitrary revision -  A l is o n  ❤ 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of procedure, I've already said that I disagree with your assessment that my rollback use constituted abuse, and I'll ask that you refrain from making that judgment unless and until there is an administrative decision to strip me of rollback. If I engaged in abuse, then my rollback should have been removed.  Instead, I used rollback, you stated that my use was inappropriate, and I respectfully disagreed and made no further edits.  Now then.  If the "at least one other editor who disagrees with [my] position" that you're referring to is Apcbg, you're not breaking news.  This editor's name appeared in my original request, and, as I pointed out, this editor is not exactly a disinterested party when it comes to Bulgarian-related topics.  While I wouldn't characterize this editor as a hard-line booster, yes, he appears to be in the same camp as Monshuai on this issue--in favor of listing Atanasoff as a Bulgarian-American in the first sentence of the article but unable to justify the position with any facts in light of the prevailing guideline.  (The only fact that Monshuai has presented, that Bulgaria somehow helped Atanasoff "win his patent case" [Atanasoff was actually a witness in the case and not a party of any standing] is fabricated bunk.)  On the other hand, LMB and Blainster take the same position I have elaborated--that the attempts to "claim" Atanasoff with unduly-weighted references to his paternal ethnicity in the lead of the article constitute boosterism and shouldn't appear.  (User:Bielle doesn't "seem to concur" with us--Bielle concurs completely.)  Monshuai doesn't seem to need to violate 3RR as his position currently prevails.  He'll happily take the win, and, for my troubles of bringing this to administrative attention, have some negative remarks against me on a few talk pages.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Alyson, I understand your concerns and I appreciate your effort to resolve this dispute. As you have seen, this has been an ongoing problem for approximately 2 years. At its earlier stages of escalation, I decided to follow Wikipedia rules and take time off from this article hoping that Robert K S will mature over a period of one year and therefore find the strength, intellectual resolve and maturity to neutralize his prejudices. Unfortunately as the weeks turned to months and the months to years, it became apparent that he was not willing to accept the valid arguments presented by other editors. Thus I decided that I would once more attempt to reason with him and therefore made sure to always share my perspectives in the discussion page before proceeding to change anything in the Atanasoff article. This too failed. That said, I thank you for taking the time to look into this matter. I appreciate your objective analysis of the situation and I am sure that both Robert K S and I will do our utmost to be productive members of the Wikipedian community. He is articulate and intelligent. If he becomes impartial and compassionate, he will be a truly remarkable editor. Have a great day and I hope we will talk again in more delightful circumstances. You're what every administrator should be: neutral, polite and conscientious.--Monshuai (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My name is being bandied above, but my palette is low on the violet end, so I can't compete in this thread. I've done some checking on similar articles, and added another comment to the talk page. I believe this not to be a content dispute, but a style dispute, and thus even less a reason for an edit war. I hope I haven't made things worse. Bielle  (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also responded to Bielle's latest comment on the talk page. I gave her/him examples of XXX-Americans who are born in the USA as she/he wasn't aware of how many other articles are written. Two articles that I have provided as evidence are those of Michael Chang and Anna May Wong both born in the USA yet clearly called Chinese-Americans in the lead. It should also be noted that the List of Chinese Americans states these are "original immigrants who obtained American citizenship and their American descendants." Clearly the word "descendents" is clarifying in our content dispute. Kind regards.--Monshuai (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alison, you are essentially telling me to stop defending ethnic groups against racism. If I have to I will take this issue to the highest authorities and to administrators of various ethnic and racial backgrounds, because it seems to me that in such a way they will be analyze the situation at hand and whether or not I am deserving of being threatened by you. I will not capitulate in the face of racism and double standards. If anything should happen to my account because I have been fighting prejudice and racism then I will formally write letters to the fouders of Wikipedia and I will point them to this discussion. I will approach this from every moral and ethical avenue possible and I will do for as long as I must to neutralize the unfair treatment of some ethnic groups.--Monshuai (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not "essentially telling" you that. I'm telling you to stop the goading of Robert K S, and stop the ad-hominem attacks. That's all. Feel free to take the issue elsewhere, by all means, but I'm not going to stand by watching you mock and goad another editor. No way. And put the racism card back away, please. My comments had absolutely nothing to do with the content of that page and everything to do with your attitude towards others - A l is o n  ❤ 00:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not blank my comments here. If you wish to refer this to Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation, then you are quite free to do so, though you may be better off trying OTRS first - A l is o n  ❤ 00:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about "blanking statements"? I really don't know what this even means and as far as I know I haven't done anything but edit some grammar mistakes in my reply to you.--Monshuai (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I replied to your comment. You removed it here. Go check - A l is o n  ❤ 00:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not remove your comment! I do not know what you are implying but I very well know that comments are saved into histories and therefore even an attempt to remove a comment would be futile. Therefore if there was some glitch or text was deleted temporarily while I was editing MY comment then I apologize. I hope this isn't some trick that you are using to make me feel guilty about something I didn't do. I may not be familiar with the various Wikipedia tools, but that doesn't mean I will not take the effort to familiarize myself with them. I am now going to look into what you're talking about.--Monshuai (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good grief! It's not some trick. You had an edit conflict and you chose to ignore it and overwrite my interim changes. Am I seeing agreement now that people cannot 'censor' your comments due to their being an edit history? This is not what you were saying to Bielle earlier - A l is o n  ❤ 00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alison, I am not familiar with the so-called "edit conflict". I have not experienced this problem before. I don't know what agreement you may or may not be seeing, but it seems to me that you are using my unfamiliarity with some Wikipedia tools or automated occurrences against me. Tell me, is it possible for a person to override a statement by accident? BTW I'm happy that your comment is now showing, because it gave me a chance to reply to it and it gives the opportunity to continue this discussion. And yes, I want all comments (which means yours, Bielle's, Robert K S's, Apcbg's, my own etc) showing everywhere (including your talk page and my talk page) so that the public, Wikipedia editors and other administrators can easily look through them. This is the most efficient way of creating a maximally effective discussion.--Monshuai (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

← It's actually creating a distributed discussion, which is even harder for people to follow. As you post the same comment to multiple places, people feel obliged to followup in all places, lest it be construed as silence - A l is o n  ❤ 01:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(sticking my nose in, hopefully in a helpful way) Alison, the edit conflict detector appears to be on the fritz for the last few days, it is quite likely that Monshuai didn't know he overwrote your comment. There's a thread about it on WP:VPT somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of Wikipedia's recent conflict detector problems, I expect an apology from you for accusing me of removing your comments Alison.--Monshuai (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? You did remove my comment & I manually re-added it - A l is o n  ❤ 01:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Some Facts:
 * --1) I did not remove your comment.
 * --2) Wikipedia glitch removed your comment.
 * --3) You re-added comment.
 * --4) You accused me of removing and censoring your comment.


 * Since you accused me of doing something I didn't do you should apologize.--Monshuai (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I accuse you of censorship? It is a stated fact that you removed my comment. It's a possibility that MediaWiki didn't warn you about the edit-conflict - A l is o n  ❤ 02:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So I take it you won't apologize?--Monshuai (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about you answer my question regarding censorship? To quote someone else; "Since you accused me of doing something I didn't do you should apologize" - A l is o n  ❤ 02:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm stepping out for a while so any responses will have to wait - A l is o n  ❤ 02:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Asking you to apologize has nothing to do with censorship. Luckily all comments are out there for everyone to carefully read through. And so they will! You're the one that has censored me on the discussion page after threatening me with an editorial block. I guess I turned out to be too good at analyzing what people were saying. I guess I was too good at proving people's fallacies and biases. I guess I didn't make you look good. I guess when people apply different standards to different ethnic groups I shouldn't call them on it. I don't think so Alison. All will be investigated.--Monshuai (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Luckily all comments are out there for everyone to carefully read through." Exactly. Bielle  (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly! I'm glad we agree. Although I'm curious about the irony. What does it mean? Am I still censored from interpreting your reference to an article about irony? At least it's on record and I will be sure to also mention this to said administrators. --Monshuai (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI-notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert K S (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Bump
You've got email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it - it's in my wiki email. I didn't get the first one, though. Can you resend? Emailing you now with my 'official' email address (that everyone seems to know anyways :/ ) - A l is o n  ❤ 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy blanking MexicoReview (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC).
 * You're very welcome :) - A l is o n  ❤ 07:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Emailed
Emailed. Netalarm  talk  07:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied :) - A l is o n  ❤ 07:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Neal
If you're able to get him civil. He's been emailing me as well, including one legal threat. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 07:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. I told him as much, to little effect. Just prior to said legal threat I did let him know (quite politely, I thought) that if he would be civil I would consider unblocking. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 07:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the unblock request and am inclined to decline an unblock based on the merits of the case and WP:IDHT concerns. But wanted to run it by you and Hersfold, in case you had any objections or wish to continue your efforts to lead the user down a more productive path. Abecedare (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ufff. I'm still trying there, and I know the guy is just angry and frustrated and doesn't know the ropes. However, as long as the legal threat stands, I'm opposed to unblock. If he withdraws that, then we can work from there - A l is o n  ❤ 07:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No objection here, of course. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 07:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Abecedare (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I'm about to log off for the night, so if you feel it's ok to unblock, go ahead. Good luck. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 08:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hersfold. I'm off to sleep here myself. 2am here :) - A l is o n  ❤ 08:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done calming down that situation! Lady of  Shalott  16:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Contact
Alison, I have e-mailed you. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Could you please explain your reasoning for this edit? I42 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Rollback abuse? Robert K S (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I accidentally hit the 'revert' link on my iPhone. My apologies. BTW, I just checked that editor, while fixing my mistake, and have blocked them for 48 hours. Sorry about the confusion - A l is o n  ❤ 17:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thanks for the explanation - and for resolving. I42 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why iPhones are a waste of metal, Allie :) *flees* &mdash;Dark 10:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More like a rollback accident. We all have them. —  Spike Toronto  00:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Robert is a little sensitive on the issue of rollback right now. Suffice it to say that if I do have a rollback accident, I apologize and undo the damage as quickly as I can (without using rollback, of course ;) ) - A l is o n  ❤ 00:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment was tongue-in-cheek; Alison accused me of having abused rollback on an edit that was the result of a slip of the mouse, and went on to inaccurately state that I had ignored this being pointed out to me. Obviously, everybody makes mistakes, and no one should be punished unjustly for good faith efforts. Robert K S (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I recall, I demonstrated that you had misused rollback at least a dozen different times, including twice on a particularly sensitive article. Mistakes are one thing, deliberate misuse is another, especially when you were explicitly warned about it over a year ago - A l is o n  ❤ 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW - with the excellent sourcing from User:Tomatoman, it looks like something's finally going to get resolved over on the John Vincent Atanasoff article, tho' likely not in the way that User:Monshuai demands. Thoughts on the latest info? - A l is o n  ❤ 02:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "progress" you believe is being made. Monshuai will continue to fight this issue to the last breath, and his position isn't being swayed.  Tomatoman's involvement is appreciated but he hasn't said anything I didn't say two years ago, or provided information that isn't readily available from Mollenhoff or Burks, the most available sources.  And you still haven't bothered to look at RJaguar3's talk page.  You know my opinion of your adminship--you're irresponsible.  Under the auspice of neutrality, you've let bad-faith editors go on way too long in a charade, and you raised a bogus allegation against me without due investigation.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't accept that, Robert. You took a case to WP:ANI, it was discussed extensively and your allegations were found wanting. Anyone who wishes to review the matter can view it here. Indeed, you're free to re-submit it or open an RFC. I've been an admin for years here and an editor since 2003, and the Atanasoff case is far from the worst I've seen. You're entitled to your opinons, of course, but I still hold out hope for a resolution over there - A l is o n  ❤ 05:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What resolution on the Atanasoff article could there be besides a cessation of edits directed to ethnic boosterism? How are Monshuai et al.'s views in line with the guideline?  If my rollback reverts had been on the Barack Obama article where a small cabal of Kenyan users were out to change the lead to "Barack Obama is the Kenyan-American President of the United States", after lengthy discussion and clear establishment of clear consensus around the issue based firmly in the MOSBIO guideline, would there have been all these trumped-up charges of abuse, or would it have been seen as proper reversion of vandalism?  Why haven't you apologized for alleging rollback abuse in the RJaguar case when I stated at the time that my rollback was a slip of the mouse, just as you did in your case at the beginning of this thread? Robert K S (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You misused rollback and did so repeatedly over at least a year. I counted at least ten unabashed rollback which were done inappropriately, two of which were on the Atanasoff article (one on a very well established and wide-ranging editor). You never undid the damage neither and right now, you're still arguing the 'rightness' of it. Okay, over to you for the last word - A l is o n  ❤ 06:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can view what I wrote on User talk:Father Goose if you want to see what I think about some of your allegations. Use of rollback to revert unexplained unsourced inaccurate numerical changes by anonymous editors just out for mischief?  Yes, that's vandalism, and that's entirely proper use of rollback no matter how you look at it.  And you use examples like those to show my "abuse"?  That is out of line.  Anyway, I notice you didn't answer any of my questions—not one.  All you can do is fall back on "You abused rollback".  We get it.  Now what about the other issues? Robert K S (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Robert K S, I view your use of the Barack Obama article as an example to demonstrate your argumentative basis as a flawed tactic at best. After all, it does state in the lede that Obama is African-American. I'm also not impressed with how you've bad mouthed me left and right on Wikipedia, without so much as giving me a warning that you are doing so. I think it would have been ethical if you had given me a heads up on my talk page so that I could have articulated/defended my point of view to the various administrators with whom you've had conversations about what you tried to define as my "vandalizing" behaviour. There are always two sides to a story and in my humble opinion those who don't uphold this view or stimulate it in discussions (especially ones where accusations are made) are neither ethical nor objective. I've also been told that you've accused me of having a sock account. Tell me, are there Wikipedia rules governing such accusations? Thanks again for the kind words.--Monshuai (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit history speaks for itself. Robert K S (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So if my edit history speaks for itself, why are you trying so hard to speak for me? BTW, you didn't answer my question in the previous post. I'll rephrase it. Are there are any rules governing "communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person?"--Monshuai (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Gately article
Hi Alison, when trying to add some information on the Stephen Gately article (which came as a shock to me when I heard he passed away so suddenly!), I found that you have some sort of rights over the article, so I would like to send you the info I was going to post and you may add it yourself if you find it relevant.

In the section where it states where Gately took parts in tv shows, I was about to add that he had a small part in the Ab Fab comedy series, Series 4, released on 08/08/2002, entitled 'Parallox' which showed him as chatting with a drunken Eddy in a bar.

all the best regards,

Sean :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanblueeyes (talk • contribs) 09:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Wow! Thank you! As an unrepentant Evil Deletionist™, I'm not sure quite what to say :) - A l is o n  ❤ 00:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Trinket collector - typical woman! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs)
 * lol - troublemaker!! :) Well, I have to say it's been an awfully long time since you graced this page, sir! Glad to see you're still about :) - A l is o n  ❤ 00:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hangin on by me fingernail! Gettin tougher and tougher to put up with the shit though without ONiH and Padraig :( .--Vintagekits (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like an appropriate moment for me to pop and say hello in then! Been working on several things, including a new article to do with sausage rolls. Bet you're wondering what that's all about aren't you?! 2 lines of K  303  13:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the longer protection on Mark Wahlberg. It's been an issue lately. He's been in some trouble early in life, but not quite as much as everyone wants him to have been! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Good morning, O my there was a lot of Vandalism on my talk page. I saw that you protected my talk page lasts night. I just wanted to say thank you.-- Zink Dawg  -- 15:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jennavecia/AFDBIO
Saw your edit to this page, and wanted to pop by and ask why you added this AfD link? The reason I ask is that the page is bot-updated by User:FritzpollBot on a daily basis (which means any intervening edits will be overwritten anyway) and I was concerned that the bot has somehow missed this one. Given the wipe-and-replace methodology the bot uses, this would mean reintroducing the error on the next run, so can you let me know? Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right - I just took leave of my senses or something. I'd been just doing delsort before hand. Anyways - I just undid it, sorry about all the trouble! - A l is o n  ❤ 08:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, doesn't matter - I just thought you'd spotted a subtle bug of some kind :) All it does is save you the effort! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte
You wrote re: deletion for Amanda Marcotte but you linked to a deletion page that concluded with a KEEP from March, 2007. Are you attempting to re-open the deletion debate or ??? Please elaborate. --AStanhope (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops - I added the older link. It should be Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte (3rd nomination)‎. Sorry! - A l is o n  ❤ 18:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts
Good morning Alison. With your experience relating to NisharKand would you mind casting your eyes and give me your opinion as to who is placing the comments at this location. With thanks.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's definitely Nisarkand, Steve. If I still had checkuser, I'd likely sweep that IP range as he'll have dozens of socks. He's using IPs right now so as not to compromise his socks but he can usually be spotted a mile off - A l is o n  ❤ 21:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought so - appreciate the second (informed) opinion. Have tagged the page. Thank you.-- VirtualSteve need admin support? 21:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

uh huh
yep. you're definetly a WikiPrincess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakkinx (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WUT?? How so? - A l is o n  ❤ 00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
Just to be clear here, an anon shows up only to accuse the subject of the article of creating it, being a sockpuppeteer, general dishonesty etc. Has since been blocked for continued behaviour along these lines and their talkpage thread has added zilch to improving the article but a toxic atmosphere. And your oppose to archiving or removing it per WP:Talk because? -- Banj e b oi   19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no. You were removing it per WP:BLP, which is incorrect in this context. My point is this; there are plenty of people already watching this from the peanut gallery. After the anon editor was safely blocked, you swooped in to collapse the discussion. Not only did you do that, but you clearly marked it as "User since blocked". Well, nothing screams "READ ME!!" more than a collapsed dialog from a blocked editor, especially as it contains clear links to Mr. Shankbone's rather obvious and widely-known sockpuppeteering. Only now it looks like you're actively covering it up, for whatever reasons. I'm sure you're not but that's the clear impression you're conveying. See what I'm saying here? - A l is o n  ❤ 23:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point but INHO we should simply delete the entire thread per WP:Talk, it's sole purpose was evidently to disrupt/attack. It adds nothing to the article which shows every sign of being kept at AfD. If the subject's alleged misconduct was at a different website we'd remove it as well as there simply is nothing of value to the article and we seem to be empowering a likely sock who has since been blocked and validating their poor behaviours. I say we delete it also per RBI. And I do think this is a BLP issue - it's attacking a BLP subject with nothing but slander, and that "sock" account is a well-known alt account that was revealed to Arbcom and has apparently caused no actual problems. Let's not reward bad behaviours of the tin hat crowd who are inventing slander and using Wikipedia to further a smear campaign.  -- Banj e  b oi   21:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Malia
Alison, thanks for stopping the edit war on Malia Obama. As an admin, what do you suggest best way to get a formal discussion going on this article is? This is being discussed on the talk page - must it be a DRV? Thanks. And, lol at The Wrong Version, how can we sleep at night ??!!! --Milowent (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 months for an edit war? – xeno talk  17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's ostensibly indef. until the issue can be resolved. I don't like simply slapping indef on, though. Feel free to override it if things have settled down over there. Last time I looked (yesterday), it was still ongoing. Indeed, a new article had been created Malia Obama (2009) and speedied. But once again, feel free to override my admin action over there. I'm swamped with RL stuff here right now - A l is o n  ❤ 02:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it, but I do try to steer away from these Obama things (why did I post here again? ). Cheers, – xeno talk  12:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats again! x2

 * See . Feel free to add yourself to WP:OS and WP:CU in the active section! Congrats! — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rlevse :) Back to work I go ^_^ - A l is o n  ❤ 02:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Glutton for punishment" comes to mind, but if you are willing, we are certainly needful. Glad to see you again among the heavily equipped. Bielle (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User page advertising?
Hi~! Per CSD G11, I believe this isn't allowed here on WP, right? More evidence of edits related to the aforementioned are here, here, here, and here. If this is not a good place to bring this to your attention, should I bring it to ANI instead? And, correct me if I'm wrong but the behaviour of the said IP user doesn't seem to have anything remote to do with bettering or editing of WP articles, he's treating WP more like a social networking site. Thought? -- Dave1185 talk 03:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's kinda borderline. I don't think they're deliberately spamming or anything. IP addresses (esp. DHCP-pooled ones such as theirs) are ephemeral, and the pages can't be 'owned' by a person. Especially posting 'rules' on the talk page :) However, they are also making good edits so have you thought about maybe asking them to remove it, maybe point them to WP:USER and WP:TALK? - A l is o n  ❤ 04:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll pass on that since the last time I posted something on his/her talk page, he/she instantly became edgy... maybe you could talk to him/her instead. -- Dave1185 talk 04:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tethys is hot
Can we protect this now? :P Glass  Cobra  05:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ✅ - A l is o n  ❤ 05:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Allie. :) Congrats on getting all your tools back! Glass  Cobra  05:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks ^_^ - A l is o n  ❤ 05:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte AfD - BLP concern
Hi Allie - you and I disagree about whether this article should stand, but that's ok - regardless of the outcome of the AfD, it seems to me that accusing someone of making "libellous claims" (here) is BLP-problematic. Can you remove that word from HoundofBaskerville's comment or ask him to? Thanks. (And glad to have you back in gear!) All best. Tvoz / talk 05:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tvoz. I've asked them to refactor it as, like you say, it's an accusation of a criminal act. So will you change your vote now? :) - A l is o n  ❤ 05:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC) (sorry, sorry!)
 * Ha! Of course not. Thanks :)   Tvoz / talk 06:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dang! Can't blame me for trying, tho' :) - A l is o n  ❤ 06:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

← Hi again... FYI, BLP problem still there. Tvoz / talk 19:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I've redacted it myself. Thanks, Tvoz ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 22:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tethys is hot
Hi there Alison, and thanks for putting a stop to this user's abuse of their talkpage. Just FYI, I believe it's general practice to change the block settings to disallow talkpage editing, rather than protecting the talk page. This means other users can edit (although they would rarely need to do so), and if the block is not indefinite (it is in this case), then the "protection" will expire at the same time. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll remember that for next time. I'm a bit out of practice, having just come out of retirement - A l is o n  ❤ 07:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But Allie.. You sure you don't wanna put the poor guy out of his misery in a game of "MKDS"? (whatever that is.) &mdash;Dark 09:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * lol - and that's Mario Kart DS. I'd whop his ass @ that - my kids have me DS trained ;) - A l is o n  ❤ 09:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone AfD
I've left a question for you there if you get a chance. Under TonyTheTiger's !vote. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this question has clearly been answered already. IMO, the sources cited do not confer notability - A l is o n  ❤ 18:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By notability do you mean WP:N? If so, I'm curious if you feel the coverage isn't significant -or- if that coverage isn't in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.  The reliable, secondary and independent seems trivially true.  But so does significant (entire articles on a subject are generally considered significant coverage).  Or are you arguing WP:N doesn't apply here and are instead using the dictionary definition of notable? Hobit (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

:O!
Your return had, until this point, escaped my notice. A belated welcome back. It's great to have you with us again, Alison. :-) AGK 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh - thanks!! :) - A l is o n  ❤ 18:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

80 billion checkuser/puppet/confusions; a little help, please?
Hello--

I don't mean to be picking on you specifically, but your name popped up in a lot of the places I was researching random things. Long story short, in starting a random third-party overhaul from something I saw on the ANI list but no one had apparently replied or done anything about whatsoever, I seem to have gotten myself horrendously trapped in a corner. The article in question I'm trying to resolve, [Mohammad Daud Miraki] was new and was a mess. People have actually been quite civil for the most part in cooperating with what I've been asking them, see talk[Talk:Mohammad Daud Miraki]. I knew ahead of time that it was going to be frustrating, but as you'll see there I just wanted to ignore all of it and start with nothing. Several have given input and I can certainly handle looking over sources and I'm constantly watching that page and others the editors there work with, so I'm not worried about being able to continue the discussion and offering some advice. ...Then a mess appeared when I apparently went too far with AGF as puppet accusations started. Thus, I looked through the puppet investigation archives in regards to these editors involving themselves in my dispute: Tajik, Inuit18, Ketabtoon and IP 119.73.14.133. The first two were blocked indefinitely and at some point unblocked under 1RR restrictions; Tajik permanently and Inuit18 through November. Ketabtoon seems to have no history, and the last of the four I have no idea about since the only edits from that IP address have been the 3 on that talk page which accuse Inuit18 as being a puppet of Anoshirawan. I researched that and saw the indefinite block, found a case where Inuit18 was accused but cleared, and some talk about IPs similar but not confirmed related to other puppets or parents. All those are closed and I have no right or reason or cause to question them. Even with the track record of two contributors, I'm trying to ignore that all and pretend they're all nameless so I can just look at their sources. However, since there was that outside accusation of puppetry, I do need some help or at least advice. I know there is no actual link established, but cases in the past 2 years seem to have added up to a whole lot of coincidence between some names and IPs. Since I can't checkuser anyone, I don't suppose I could ask you to look at these four very briefly and peek at Anoshirawan's relation to any? Originally I was considering posting this on the puppet/checkuser requests, but I'm basing my request more on gut feeling and coincidence within just one specific article instead of any large abuse scheme, I thought it wouldn't go over so well there and would seek specific comment. Really, I just want to treat my page discussion evenly, and overviews of edit histories didn't show anything suspicious so I'm afraid this is my last option. Soooo sorry for asking, really, and I'm mostly embarrassed because I didn't think enough ahead of time about how theoretically bad an outside perspective/review can be for an article dispute since I have... no rights. Other things I've commented in from ANIs/RfCs involved very civil people that have since worked things out on their own, so I guess I was being quite naive. Cheers, Datheisen (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/7oceans
Hi, you checkusered this case, there are more suspicious accounts being used on the same article, two more have been added to the case since it was checkusered by User:Rees11. Are you able to reopen the case to check if these are more socks? Thanks Smartse (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep - will do!! Busy here right now, but I'll get to it later. Thanks for letting me know :) - A l is o n  ❤ 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, ✅ now - one confirmed - A l is o n  ❤ 22:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Smartse (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sexual arousal and climax via telecommunication
I'd never had phone sex until I saw the image on the article. Until now, I thought I had to penetrate, or be penetrated by, the telephone itself. Imagine my relief when I finally realised what I was doing wrong. Then again, I don't think the operator was too impressed! GTD 22:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't dare ask what you did with the plug. – irides cent 2  22:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What you're looking for, of course, is teledildonics. Personally, I'm holding out for the iPhone app ("There's an app for that!") ^_^ - A l is o n  ❤ 22:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG!! I've just found a wiki for that. Genuinely surprised :O - A l is o n  ❤ 22:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Now I wonder who could possibly be behind that site? I guess with fewer accounts active here, he has more time on his hands. – irides cent 2  22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! First thing I thought when I saw the link to Wipi! GTD 22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * lol - good catch, Iridescent! - A l is o n  ❤ 22:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Alison
Question - has Tony commented either way as to whether this article should be kept or not?

When my son wrote the article, I told him that even though I considered it an honor, I didn't think it was a good idea, after all who am I to consider myself notable, that's for others to decide, however I told him that I would not object if he thought he was doing the right thing. As time went on and there were no objections, I made updates to it. Regardless of the outcome, the only thing that bothers me is the personal vendetta/witch-hunt which User: YellowMonkey, who voted against the Tony Santiago article (which is fine), has taken against my person as evidenced by his dedication to making sure that every photo or mention of me in Wikipedia is eliminated [evidence]. These are not random acts of editing, he has taken it to a personal stage and no one has done anything nor told him to put an end to it. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser/Oversighter in training
Welcome back. Jehochman Talk 13:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh - thanks, I think!! :) - A l is o n  ❤ 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Hey Alison, hope you're well. :) I was about to close this discussion, but I was confused at your post; you voted "very weak keep", but your arguments seemed to be more in favor of deletion. Am I reading this wrong, or is there a slight mixup? Regards, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Julian - it's right on the edge. Feel free to discount it if you like but I felt the sources were borderline keep, but not by very much. It could go either way, to be honest - A l is o n  ❤ 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, in that case, thanks for the clarification. I'll go review the article and lodge my own !vote. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

AN/I - CU question
Hi Alison. Please see my quesion here. Thanks, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thanks, Bastun - A l is o n  ❤ 18:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Monitor talkpage
Hi Alison~! Could I trouble you to look after my user/talk page for the next three to four days while I'm away? The reason is due to a close family member just passed on and I'm helping with his funeral arrangements... my mind is in a blank right now... :'( -- Dave1185 talk 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. And condolence on your loss - A l is o n  ❤ 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, really appreciate it a lot. Another thing, due to my internet connection by SingNet wireless network, the IP addresses assigned to me when I'm viewing articles can be annoying, I often get messages meant for someone else when I'm not log-in. Is there anything you can do to help? Thanks. -- Dave1185 talk 23:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Stopping by
I've seen your name and talk page appear in my watchlist several times recently, but I realized I hadn't yet come round to leave any notes here. It's nice to see you again: it's good to have friendly editors returning, especially ones you worked and interacted with a lot many months (and years!) ago. Best. Acalamari 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Acalamari :) And it's nice to see you still about, too! - A l is o n  ❤ 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Alert
User_talk:Secretary-whbtc  Triplestop  x3  02:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As checkuser involved in the above case, I'd rather not block/unblock and would prefer if an uninvolved admin reviewed the situation. Thanks for letting me know, tho' - A l is o n  ❤ 06:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

 * I'm delighted to see that you made it through RfA:) Congratulations and welcome to the janitorial team! - A l is o n  ❤ 06:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

History of swimming
Hi, you removed an edit summary as it was "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" I think this one also needs removing as it says the same thing. Smartse (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thanks! It's again -  A l is o n  ❤ 11:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as you're cleaning up after Tojo, how about this guy's edit summaries? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thanks :) - A l is o n  ❤ 12:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Enforcing Policy
Hi. Can you assist with enforcing policy to respect living persons? I've been trying to get Image:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg off of Nudity and/or deleted, as have the main subject and the photographer-uploader. Whether I cite Copyright (e.g. contributory infringement) law, or various en. or commons. policies, (e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Moral_issues), I am not having luck. I've proposed deletion, and removed it from the page, to no avail. I don't want to be banned for re-removing the image from Nudity. Your File:Neonman2.jpg seems fine to me, but not this. Maybe you can delete if you're on commons, and or comment on removing it from Nudity.--Elvey (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

JDH username farm from 8/14/09
Hi Alison - would you look at my block log and apply your magic erasing gizmo as appropriate? Incredible - he spent over 3 solid hours making usernames that nobody would ever see. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)