User talk:Alison/Archive 70

Happy Halloween!
Hi Alison! Wishing you a very happy Halloween :-) TheGeneralUser (talk)  22:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy belated Halloween, Ali.  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  13:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Alison - and a happy Samhain as well! --Overand (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Mail
Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

UTRS ticket #9300
Hi Alison, if you wouldn't mind, could you please pop on to UTRS and provide some background on ticket 9300? You were the blocking admin for the case. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Fluff! I've gone ahead and commented over on that ticket. Reckon it's okay for a/c create but best leave the /24 softblock in place - Alis o n  ❤ 18:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Example of personal attack
. I was surprised that an administrator would say something like the lower paragraph. As for promoting a photograph, your definition of COI would apply to any editor to uploads and adds a picture to any article without making a disclosure. Not being legalistic here, but would be nice if you reconsidered your position.Mattnad (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised at your overreaction here. Words like "frenzy and personal attacks", "personal attacks and allegations", "How about you tone down your comments? Just sayin'", etc, etc. None of these are collegial comments, and are a a gross assumption of bad faith on your part. As for the comment cited, it's meant to be humourous. I deeply apologize for your not seeing it in that way, and should you wish to take it further, direct you to the nearest drama-board - Alis o n  ❤ 00:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm not about to reconsider my position. You directly touted a photograph, using the RfC process that you yourself uploaded, without disclosing it first. Later, you would claim it as just being a sample, yet your RfC is running your pic alongside the current one. Not some other sample - your one. Then you couched the RfC in vague terms, whilst handwaving towards your upload. Not cool - Alis o n  ❤ 00:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. reminds me of my women's studies classes. Mattnad (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Reminds me of man-children who like belittling women who reasonably disagree with them under the guise of "straight-talking." And she's absolutely right - using a picture that you claim you own the copyright to as a random selection from commons was sleazy. Also, what's your relation to Moe Nadler, who apparently held the marketing rights for the "Wonderbra" in Canada for a great many years?Dan Murphy (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

UTRS Comments box
Hey, saw your finishing a comment on a new line because you got cut off on ticket 9300. I just wanted to let you know that the comments box is a sort of "quick view". If you want to display the full comments, you just click the "Logs for this request" link at the top and there will be a popup box with the full comments. So there is no need to finish off. Also, if you click the "add comment" link, you can use a multi-line box. Just neat little features that are under used.--v/r - TP 21:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Rschen7754 10:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Case of sockpuppetry against user Blurred Lines
I just like to alert you as a checkuser. I have made a case of abuse of sockpuppets by user Blurred Lines as shown here Sockpuppet investigations/Blurred Lines and literally within seconds of my making out the case, User talk:Reaper Eternal deleted it with his reason being "obviously not the same user." I made out the case again and requested Reaper to actually investigate. This is not the first time I have brought a case of suspected sockpuppetry abuse to the noticeboard and Reaper Eternal immediately dismissed before it was the same matter was brought to the noticeboard by a different user and it was ultimately discovered that the editor I had reported was in fact abusing sockpuppets. The issue happened with user Cresix in which Reaper first declined my case and someone else would then later bring similar concerns to the noticeboards and it was found that the editor I reported had a penchant for abusing sockpuppets (as shown in the case involving user Cresix here and here  and here ). The user in this case, Blurred Lines, has a history of abusing sockpuppets and has been blocked for it recently. He has a similar editing style as User:Onorem. I remade out the case, requesting that this checkuser actually investigate. If Reaper will not look into the matter thoroughly and just instantaneously delete the case, could you please?! And could you monitor that this case is actually investigated and not just dismissed within seconds of my making it out? Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do investigate this and then explain to AmericanDad86 how absolutely ridiculous this is, and exactly how weak his 'case' against me is. --Onorem (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * IIRC, I think it's against the privacy policy for checkusers to run the tool for completely baseless cases, even if the subject of the request asks them to, to prove their innocence. Alison would certainly know better than I would, though. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct, and I'm not really making the request. It was more of a please do, I clearly have nothing to hide so go ahead type statement. --Onorem (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, I posted my opinion on it to AD86's talk page. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)