User talk:Alison/Archive 51

YGM
-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: "Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!"
A eochairabairt maith ar a dtugtar ó Star Fox, a chroí. (please excuse my dreadful Gaelic :P)  狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!   00:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhh! Go raibh maith agat! :) 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille!   01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look at ...
this thorny issue? Feel free to RevDel everything that needs to be, including my own post on the matter here and there. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Mail
Thenub314 (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?
Please don't tell me you're going to edit war with me over the policy of not commenting on archived discussions. Especially not when Bishonen is using one of his many alternate accounts to make a trolling comment that doesn't benefit the encyclopedia a single iota. Silver seren C 23:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Helpful little Alison
Reverted again ! [''Bishzilla is upset. Considers going on wiki-wide rampage.''] Trolling??? Que?   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    00:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
 * I think that any experienced contributor here is going to be aware of Bish's style, and leave it up to a closing Admin to give his/her contributions to a discussion appropriate weight. Being here should be fun, sometimes, and that idea seems to be becoming less and less important. Shame, and perhaps lightening up wouldn't be unhelpful. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue wasn't the comment's content, it was that the discussion has already been archived and you're not supposed to edit archived discussions. I have no problem with humor if it's employed in the right way, but it shouldn't be used in a manner that breaks policy. For Humor is not an IAR reason. Silver  seren C 00:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps I missed that, but I don't see it. But the bottom line, as I see it, is that Bish's comment did not substantively contribute to the debate at hand, and the closing Admin would probably have discounted it as irrelevant to the merits of the debate at hand. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the discussion was already archived when Bishzilla (Bishonen) made the comment in the AfD. The admin has already made a decision a long time ago and it was enacted. This has nothing to do with the comment's content, as I said, but with the fact that the AfD is already closed.


 * The main reason why AfDs are not supposed to be edited after they have been archived is for retention purposes and because a bunch of accounts can "vote" after the fact and change what would be the appeared consensus and then start a DRV saying that the admin closed it wrong, when those votes didn't exist when the admin closed it. It is because of this that it is general policy that you are not allowed to edit archived discussions and are always reverted when you do.  Silver  seren C 00:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the comment out of the archival box, not in the least because it was out-of-the-box thinking, besides missing the bus by a couple of days. Untimely humor... Tijfo098 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * fixed. Barong 01:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're making friends. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean Ally? or 'Zilla? Ya, ya. You know what this: means? See also: Barong; yesterday there were two unattached accounts, but I asked a friend to usurp one (it's now teh most recently created account;). I just wrote another friend about the remaining one, so ms:Pengguna:Barong may be in hand by the time you read this. Or you're referring to the zoo-known-as-ANI... where half the posers should be blocked. The supports are unsurprising and from people with a lot of clue. You know how many times this has been tried? I'm not even bothering canvassing.
 * @Ally; just got junk mail about teh new iMac ;)
 * Barong 06:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 

Email
Hope you received my Email. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Latin vicipaedia
Dear Alison, I'm Xaverius, magistratus in the Latin wiki. It seems that our most vandalic, stubborn and rude of our contributors, Pantrocrator does not hold you in high steem, according to his most recent edit, which I shall not translate. Luckily for us he has not caused any trouble recently over la:wiki. I do not know what he has done here, but over there we simply decided not to unnecessaryly reply to his comments to avoid lenghty and pointless dicussion and revert all those edits which deserved so. I do not know if he acts with the same name over here or if he acts just as an IP, but I thought you'd like to know that he's a cross-wiki vandal. Cheers, --Xave ri us  17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL - thanks for what has to be the weirdest insult yet :) And yeah, I know what "illa sanguinem defaecat diebus" means, even if Google translate doesn't. Ew!! :p I've no idea who that person is, BTW - A l is o n  ❤ 21:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He said in bad Latin that he couldn't tell you here because he had been "bannatus" (which is so wrong, and so completely invented, that it makes my eyes cry), so it may be some recurrent vandalic IP/sockpuppet which you've blocked recently, I guess... Now i'm intrigued about who this person may be across wiki, in case he comes back to vandalise la:wiki...--Xave ri us  09:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, he also threatens with the destruction of en:wiki under IP 71.107.148.49--Xave ri us  09:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh! Okay - 71.107.148.49 is Grawp, aka JarlaxleArtemis. Dunno if they're one and the same or not. He's been trying to destroy en.wiki since about 2006 or so .... :D - A l is o n  ❤ 09:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

More mail!
Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 22:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you are there. You just blocked someone so I saw you in the block log. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 04:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's my :rollseyes: emoticon? Please ask someone else. I'm only dealing with Functionaries issues right now; that's oversight, banned editors, off-line checkuser, etc. Seriously - I'm hella busy right now - A l is o n  ❤ 05:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please take a look
Hi Alison, here's a text of email I got today from MediaWikiMail (I only removed new password):

"Someone from the IP address 83.252.62.192 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Mbz1" is "....". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password.

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org"

Alison, it is not an error and not a coincidence. Please see IP contributions:

I forwarded you the email I got. This email was sent to the same account that was hacked 2 times for the last 5 month. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Email
--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 blocked, and at ANI
I don't know if you know, but Sarah is indef blocked and currently at ANI (she can't contribute there though). As you've interacted with her in the past, are you interested in commenting? I'm asking because there has been a small group of very negative people encouraging very punitive (imo) decisions to be made. I think more input is needed, and it's also dragging on (perhaps because of this lack of balance).

She accepts John as a mentor, and imo just needs a last warning to use better language re "the British" (and to refrain from giving any opinion at all really - this is WP after all) - or it's got to be a topic ban for her, or worse. That's my own proposal anyway - which seems logical and fair. She been out of trouble for years now, and typically productive too - so jumping to those extreme measures at this point just isn't right imo. The atmosphere at the ANI (and on her talk) is simply too punishing at times, but I thought ANI is supposed to be about finding workable solutions. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Juice Plus
Life is certainly interesting over there at the moment. Just wondering if you've come to a determination with the ticket yet? Hopefully I'm not going to be wikistalked here :-) Shot info (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Oh, that. Yes - there were serious issues relating to that article and one editor in particular. Those issues were resolved last year, thank goodness, and things have been quieter since. The article could probably use a fresh perspective, though, and be scrubbed for neutrality by an outside editor - A l is o n  ❤ 05:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red is back in ownership mode at Juice Plus, in spite of the requests made prior to his 6-month ban that he stop editing the article altogether. The article is a travesty, as many have remarked over the years, and a blot on Wikipedia's reputation. I would suggest an admin investigation into the neutrality of the article, leading in all probability to a permanent ban on his activities there, but I have removed the article from my watchlist instead. --TraceyR (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tracey R, I am very concerned about your conduct with respect to Juice Plus and the campaigning that you are now doing, insinuating article ownership, misstating that I was banned in the past, and absurdly asking for me to be banned from WP in the future. The time has come for you to stop this harassment, as I have had to endure more than enough of it in the past and it is becoming a serious hindrance to the project and my editorial freedom. If you aren’t willing to refrain from such inappropriate conduct voluntarily than I suggest that we take this to the highest level of dispute resolution in which we can discuss COI and you connection with Juice Plus. As a distributor, you should have revealed your COI long ago, but instead you lied about it and have been skirting the rules all along. This harassment, and the contentious editing on Juice Plus, must stop. How do you want to proceed? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall reply to Rhode Island Red on his talk page. I see no need to maintain several parallel threads. --TraceyR (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would seem prudent for this user and I to disengage from direct contact going forward, as direct contact is more likely to inflame the situation than resolve it. Comments from this user would best be posted elsewhere than on my Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rhode Island Red deleted my reply to his attack, so I have preserved it on my talk page. It can be found here. --TraceyR (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Meow Wars
hi alison: i was disappointed to see this, and noticed that you are included here. if you would, please place the article here, and i will try to source it and recreate if i can. Badmachine (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe that the Meow Wars article has been deleted. It's a vital piece of internet history and of usenet in particular. This was going on long before many internet denizens were even born! I'll admit to having been there, and being a 'meower' and Flonker (seriously - who even remembers that term?) at various times. Seriously - I'm rescuing this one. The big issue, of course, is that on-line news sources and the Web itself didn't exist, so it went undocumented. Consider it restored to your userspace. I'll help work on it too - A l is o n  ❤ 04:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for userfying it. hopefully we can get this going, but im having trouble with sourcing, so any halp is appreciated. guess its time to go to the library and find a (paper) source or two. Badmachine (talk)
 * Okies. An RL friend of mine wrote Zen and the Art of the Internet: A Beginner's Guide, back in the day, so I'll hit him up for resources, too. It's really hard to find on-line sources but I'll see what I can do. Dump stuff onto the talk page whenever you find things - A l is o n  ❤ 05:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * will do. ima try the library tomorrow, cuz nothing i found online is usable. Badmachine (talk)