User talk:Alison/Archive 55

article visibility
Stephen Richards (author) has recently been deleted, but I would like to view the article and possibly improve it. I believe that it is a viable article. He is the founder of Mirage Publishing and I would like all the edit history returned and the article made into a redirect to "Mirage Publishing" for now. I can then consider the article off-line. I have asked the deleting administrator, but he does not seem to understand my request. I am asking here having looked at the list of administrators who make articles visible and made a fairly random choice. Snowman (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok - ✅ - Alis o n  ❤ 10:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruslan Salei
Hi, Ali❤: I contacted Shootmaster 44 and explained what happened. He's cool. I have no dog in this fight, if that idiom is appropriate, i.e. meaning I have no interest or agenda or obsessions about ice hockey or conspiracy theories about airplane crashes. I never heard of any of these unfortunate young people before today. I was just trying to keep track of what was going on, but there's too much editing by new and unregistered users. I think some degree of page protection may be needed. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Email sent
--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ding!

 * Actually, I sent it a few days ago, just checking on it you, but no big deal. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Check me, please
Hey Alison, at John Hearne (lawyer), I made an edit, and the system randomly decided to log me out in the middle of adding a category. After logging back in and making a null edit to claim the real edit, I redacted my IP address. Am I now supposed to request official oversight? Or is it ok for me just to do that? (Was it improper to do with my own edit?) Lady of Shalott 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're likely to get a much faster result by emailing the oversighters or pinging one on IRC. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it seems that one already saw it and nuked your IP. :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah, me ;) I'm on my cell here! - Alis o n  ❤ 02:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both! So is the difference that with just the admin revdel, other admins could still see it, but with oversight, no one can see it? (Forgive me if this is a dumb question; this is an area of WP workings I'm done little with.) Lady of Shalott 02:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Alison, thank you for the reply. Part of the nature of this sort of thing is that it's hard/impossible to glance at past examples around the wiki and see which course of action has been taken, so thanks again for the feedback. Brammers (talk/c) 08:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Oh!! Thank you so much, Sydney :) It's nice to know that someone notices the behind-the-scenes stuff :) - Alis o n  ❤ 07:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hello,sorry to disturb with a question as this is not something wich has to see with the wiki.en. And very sorry about my english too. I'm sysop on a little wiki and faced with an user who ist cutting article's text to put them on another page just to avoid other noticing his dids and to write them as he wants, destroying like that he page history. I was wondering wich would be done on a big wiki, knowing he is not at his first wrongdoing. --Kadwalan (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on Talk:David Reimer
As a person who edits a lot of biographies, I'm curious as to how you feel Reimer is treated in his article as a whole. Would there be a difference if he were still alive? Thanks. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
causa sui (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at this please?
An editor has archived a section in the Harriet Harman talk page, see this diff. My view is that, if it clearly contravenes WP policy on BLP's it should be deleted, otherwise it should be restored. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Related discussion is on the article talkpage Talk:Harriet_Harman - No one has requested the discussion be deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've commented there now - Alis o n  ❤ 02:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alison. I am not involved in the actual argument and do not intend to be. I went to the page to help with a much simpler RfC but noticed that a large section of the talk page had been removed in the middle of what seemed to be a heated argument.  Initially the reason given was that the argument had become stale but this was then changed to BLP issues.  You know my views on genuine BLP issues but in this case it looked as though an editor was trying to improperly stop discussion on the talk page.  If the talk breaches WP policy on BLP then it should be deleted, otherwise it should stand.  I do not think there is any halfway house where material should be archived, but not deleted.  I am not going to take any action myself but I will ask the person who removed it to restore it.  This is just for your information, I am not asking you to take any further action or interest.


 * On a different subject, there is an editor who claims that medical details of Caster Semenya have been published in certain journals. I am still waiting for proof of this but, if it is confirmed, we may have to think carefully about whether any changes to the page are justified.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

apostrophes

 * See your Irish talk page

Jcwf (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jaap - I'll take a look - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 02:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit war
If you have a moment, can you request that ToonIsALoon not to revert to his favored version of The Godfather Part III whilst this discussion and this discussion are both ongoing? I am really trying to get previously uninvolved editors to contribute to the discussion so that consensus can be reached. So far, it has been the same user and I reverting each other and talking past one another on the talk page. Someone has to intervene. Thank you. ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 02:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I dropped a note on their talk page. Can I also ask you to not just simply revert-war either - you're both at it - and take it over to WP:Films and try to get some consensus from a wider group of editors. I can see that both of you are making valid points, but they're threatening an edit war and you're claiming they're just there to be disruptive. Neither of these are good - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 03:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This has gone on long enough that my good faith has gone out the window. But, I take your point, and I am trying to settle this amicably.  That is why I came to you rather than simply reverting for the umpteenth time.  My hope is that something positive will come out of the discussion at the Film Project.  Thanks for your help and good advice. ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  03:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please advise
re:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harriet_Harman#Archiving_this_page.

Alison, thank you so much for entering the discussion on how to move forward, however I need to make something extremely clear to you, the reason that the debate over PIE inclusion is that the user Off2riorob has practised blocking attempts at reaching consensus for eighteen months. We have four editors who wish to include neutrally and two that do not, they keep trying to throw the debate into the long grass even going to lengths such as deleted talk history out of sequence and renaming neutral-sounding sections, please consider helping us through this? I have all the sources necessary and am happy to make it neutral as possible and I have to ask are wiki BLP entries cv's or factual living biographies? I do not want to cause any harm but Harman's continued impact and presence over attempts to water down child sex legislation is extrememly pertinent. Twobells (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)