User talk:Aloha27/archive 2

October 2013
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page St Patrick's Channel. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation do's and don'ts, you should: Thank you. Cmr08 (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
 * Use short sentence fragment descriptions, which should not end with punctuation
 * Use only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
 * Do not add red links unless used in an article, and include a "blue link"
 * Do not pipe links—keep the full title of the article visible
 * Do not insert external links

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Bhycburgee.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Rachel Chagall, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sum mer PhD (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sum mer PhD (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankie MacDonald
Hi there, I'm not sure what the copyright situation is with those videos. The only note on CPAC website is that some images are copyrighted, I don't see anything there mentioning the video content as being copyrighted. Since there is no mention of copyright, I would say include it, unless someone tells you differently. I also checked Mark Eyking's official website and there is a text version of his comments posted under "News". Cmr08 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I just added a news article from the Cape Breton Post for this recognition, so I can't see there being any problems with the link you added since it now has a reliable source along with the video. Cmr08 (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

SS Arrow
SS Arrow is listed at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shipwrecks_of_the_Nova_Scotia_coast category page, but I haven't a clue how to move the entry from the "S" section to where it belongs in the "A" section. Any tips would be appreciated. Thank You.  Aloha27  talk 20:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I believe I have fixed it, take a look. What you have to do is, in the article itself, when you include it in a category, add al vertical line, followed by what you want it sorted as. Look at the edit history to see it. Hope that helps and happy editing! Happysquirrel (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Question
I would like to know why you reverted my edit on the user page of Vaselineeeeeeee ? Tea Lover 1996   Lets talk about it  02:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Question was answered here Regards.  Aloha27  talk 13:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Halifax, Nova Scotia
Hi Aloha27, I reverted your edit about the vacant riding in the Halifax, Nova Scotia article, the MLA for Dartmouth South died yesterday so the seat is vacant. The IP never explained the change, so it's understandable that you thought it could have been vandalism. Cmr08 (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

~
Hello! I just wanted to tell you something about your sign. . Here; color:#FFFFFF; there should be a space after  isn't it? Though it causes no harm in WikiMark up, still sometimes in different type of programming language, this will create a slight problem. aGastya   &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 08:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fiddle  Faddle  10:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... The article General service area was deleted for WP:N I believe but there are nearly 1600 pages that formerly linked to it (see []) Do these have to be manually edited to get rid of the red links or do they have to be hand-bombed, so to speak?

 Aloha27  talk  09:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeez, you really want to nuke this thing from orbit. I won't even bother asking why anymore. I've unlinked the majority, though a few of the redlinks stay as a matter of relevance. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting edit
Hi Aloha27, just a heads-up about an edit I just partially reverted. Take a look at what link an editor recently added to an article. Could be just an honest mistake with no connection to the other editor who added it in the past, but might be worth keeping an eye on just in-case. Cmr08 (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Could be an honest mistake IMO as well. Added to my watchlist just in case. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  12:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Another interesting edit happened at the Bedford, Nova Scotia article here. Same type of edit summary. Reverted. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  06:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comment on AIV
Hi there, Just to let you know that 3RR applies when an editor does more than three reverts on a single page in 24 hours, not when an editor has reverted a revision 3 times. And it doesn't apply to vandalism reversion. See WP:NOT3RR. Regards. '''Class455fan1 (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Answered here. Misunderstanding. It's all good.   Aloha27   talk  00:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

rollback
Hi Aloha27. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

February 2016
Your recent editing history at Frankie MacDonald shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Please don't remove cited information without reaching a consensus. '' T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As you are no doubt aware, 3RR is void when dealing with contentious BLP edits. As I have asked on more than one occasion. IS "The Coast" considered a reliable source AND fit to be cited? By definition (tabloid), it is not. Please see [] Regards,   Aloha27   talk  03:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Canadian Journalism Foundation (CJF) is pleased to announce The Coast in Halifax, as the Excellence in Journalism Award winner in the small media category. The award recognizes Canadian news organizations that embody exemplary journalism with a resulting impact on the community they serve." http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/the-canadian-journalism-foundation-announces-halifaxs-the-coast-as-winner-of-the-excellence-in-journalism-award-in-small-media-category-517478421.html T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 03:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the article and find that in this particular instance the reporter Hillary exercised good judgement and thoroughness in sourcing her stories. A far cry from the piece submitted by Mr. Boon and the publication in general IMO. If this story garners a CJF award... you know what they say about blind squirrels. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  12:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing edits???
I am amazed how quickly you have removed my edits to Bedford and Lower Sackville. I am afraid I don't understand why you did that.These two places are NOT in Halifax. the legal name is still Halifax Regional Municipality.

Halifax is being used to advertise nationally and internationally the area BUT it is not the legal name. I am sure the citizens of these two places would be so upset to see that they are now in Halifax.

What gives you the right to say what stays and what doesn't?

22:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Widgaf (talk)

Replied to here   Aloha27   talk  22:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!
A little Bailey's and it'll be perfect. Thanks.  Aloha27   talk  11:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

June 15 2016 A little aggressive are we?
I feel that your approach in eagerly killing others' contributions is counter productive to the expanding of knowledge that we are all basically about here. I added a short excerpt into the Daylight Savings time article about Islamic timekeeping, you scrubbed due to lack of citations. I understand the need for citations, and will add it in, but this information is WIDELY common knowledge and Wikipedia contains whole articles on the subject of Islamic Prayer Times. It is akin to, for instance, the Bread article claiming that "Throughout recorded history it (bread) has been popular around the world" with no citation. No one questions Hey! What recorded history??? Huh? Because it is widely common knowledge and CLEARLY not some malicious edit. You might have just mentioned it to me instead of an overzealous reversion. My next question is May I simply link the Islamic prayer times article, which is already rich in citations from many sources? Would you immediately delete that too? Tezcore (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a simple concept really. As I explained to you on your talk page, this edit was reverted assuming good faith on your part because it was not cited. I'm not sure how I could have explained that more civilly. Should you add a reliable citation, I'm sure that no one would have an issue with it.Regards,   Aloha27   talk  18:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Question
How many feet is "Ever After"? I've been watching that Youtube series "Sailing La Vagabond" and have maybe caught the bug.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit issues
Hi there! I just got your message on my talk page. Exactly what is not considered "uncited material" on pages such as CJCH? I have added sources from radio industry sites RadioInsight and Airchecker.ca on the recent flips in Barrie, Halifax and Kitchener. Are they somehow not considered "decent sources"? RadioInsight is run by Lance Venta, a man who has worked in the radio business for decades, and knows what he's talking about. What exactly is it that's missing? I have also cleaned up pages to make them look more presentable, as I believe in a more presentable look on radio station pages without having a ton of clutter (i.e. spelling errors, poor sentence structure, etc.). Please respond back, as I would like to avoid the whole blocking issues as much as possible. Thanks.

Frankie MacDonald
Frankie MacDonald is on every week on a weekly podcast called "The Gary and Dino Show" Frankie is the "Official Weatherman" of The Gary and Dino Show...the podcast is behind a paywall so there us no way to provide what you call a reliable source, you can either pay the $5 and listen for yourself or ask Frankie himself since you are in Nova Scotia...that should be a reliable enough source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8100:92B0:349A:B60A:FA12:BBC (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied to here   Aloha27   talk  14:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * https://twitter.com/garyanddino/status/660236932450922497 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.84 (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied to here   Aloha27   talk  14:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at WP:AIV, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove peoples comments as you did here, Do it again and I'll have you blocked, Thank you. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not exactly sure of what you're referring to following that diff. IF it was my partially striking my own comment and changing it to read 6RR from 5RR, it was by no means vandalizing the page or removing other people's comments. I believe I'll need more information than that. And just for the record, the IP user I reported was removing partial information about personal life of the subject and NOT blanking that entire article as you incorrectly stated at AIV. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  01:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You've removed my comment which is clearly seen in the diff provided, Please don't do it again, Thank you. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If I DID do that I sincerely apologize. I've only been here for 9 1/2 years and occasionally mistakes can happen. However, I notice that you didn't address the incorrect part of your comment either when you admonished me for the 6RR report. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  01:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Offending IP editor has been blocked for edit warring. See here. Closing discussion.  Aloha27   talk  14:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes review
Please note I unaccepted a revision where an IP editor changed "were" to "was" per WP:ENGVAR. KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing 01:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

IP User vandalism help
Hey, I just removed vandalism by the following users:

185.69.144.95

154.57.248.189

I saw that you reverted one of them. I'm new to Wikipedia so I put a level 1 Vandalism warning on their talk pages. Is there anything else I should do? Please let me know and help out a friendly Wikipedia noob.

Thanks, DeWitt Clinton (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

AN notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Community ban for Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD". Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

JT LeRoy page vandalisms
What you're calling an "editing war" is the effort to keep someone from using the JT LeRoy entry to promote their own film and defame the subject of the entry. On January 2, 2016, Robertissimo requested that the editor "108.200.141.120" stop posting vanity additions to the JT LeRoy entry and broach the subject on Talk before reposting again. Instead, that person ignored the Talk page and persisted in trying to add the same and related promotional materials and vandalisms. The same edits kept up throughout January 2016, only the name of the editor kept changing: "Itzat94118," "Earthyperson," "Truthlovepeace." This person also came back in March 2016 as "174.119.2.166," but then fell quiet. That is, until September 21. Now using the name "Msturm 8," similar disruptions and distortions to this page have recurred: various attempts to promote the film "The Cult of JT LeRoy" and its director, Marjorie Sturm. I repaired the entry but "Msturm 8" came back repeatedly, trying to pitch that film -- which by the way is already cited in the article, along with other recent films about the JT LeRoy saga; the Jeff Feuerzeig film is also mentioned at the top (in a survey of post-reveal allusions to JT LeRoy) only because it is the sole feature-length documentary on this subject to receive international theatrical distribution. So it seems like an appropriate mention in that context to me. But if that editorial decision doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, then sentence should be removed; the different films are mentioned elsewhere. I keep repairing the entry because Wikipedia cannot be used to sell someone's movie.NVG13DAO (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not a war, it's a siege. I keep the page the way it was, not as a vehicle to promote other people's films or agendas. I repair an edit that also truncates other text -- please stop undoing it and leaving the page damaged.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC) You are removing information that is correctly cited. That is unacceptable here. See your talk page. Regards   Aloha27   talk  20:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This post on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents is being shared with you: I protest most strenuously the interference with my October 15 edit of the JT LeRoy page. I replaced properly cited, pertinent information, and for Aloha27 to pull it down claiming "unreliably cited information" is completely unfair -- and suggests a different agenda is at work here, one that seeks to advance the argument of the original vandalism that I undid. Aloha27 needs to explain in what way the original text had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did. Now a brand-new editor -- 2601:646:4000:5076:d464:a479:a51b:ddc6 -- makes their first edit on the page for Laura Albert (the actual author behind the JT LeRoy books), adding something shamelessly judgmental and biased: After a quote of Argento praising Albert in 2013, this editor added the following commentary: "However in July of 2016, Asia Argento came further forward and break her silence on her real thoughts about the scandal." Ignoring the grammatical failings, who on earth is this person to say what Argento's or anyone else's "real thoughts" are? It was quite right that a vandalism warning accompanied that edit. It was totally unacceptable editing and I have repaired it; in the spirit of balance, however, I have not removed the 2016 quote.

The Wikipedia editors have to ask themselves a very simple question about the JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages: Do they want an unbiased article with cited and accurate information, which leaves readers free to make up their own minds -- like we do for everyone else, from Britney Spears to Joseph Stalin -- or do they want a page that continuously seeks to judge and denounce its subject? A page rewritten to legitimize the hate-filled screed "The Cult of JT LeRoy" by Marjorie Sturm. It's no accident that "Msturm 8" and her previous sock puppets -- Itzat94118," "Earthyperson," "Truthlovepeace," "174.119.2.166" -- keep putting up the same judgmental, slanted language that currently distorts the JT LeRoy page.

I urge all the editors I have cited to stop moralizing and slanting information, stop distorting the record. The JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages have to be as legitimate as all the other Wikipedia pages. I am adding this post to the Talk pages for JT LeRoy, Laura Albert, and all the editors involved in or cited in this thread.NVG13DAO (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This wall of text replied to here   Aloha27   talk  17:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Continuing this matter, here's the latest post fromn Aloha27: (talk page stalker) Huon has explained in great detail and much more succinctly here and here than I did here why the edits by NVG13DAO are not satisfactorily cited. Regards,  Aloha27  talk  20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And my response: Aloha27 is deliberately trying to obfuscate what they have done. The links given above are completely unrelated to what Aloha27 did on October 15. Huon's edits have nothing to do with Aloha27's October 15 undoing of my edit, which was vandalism. Instead of hiding what they're doing, I insist once again that Aloha27 either explain in what way the original text that was on the page had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did ASAP.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I urge you not to attempt to cover up and distract from what you're actually doing, and to repair that page ASAP.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The very next time you make an accusation as to another editor's intentions regardless of who it is, I'll not hesitate to have you blocked from editing. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  20:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And one more call and response:

As I understand it, the citation of the information you're trying to add is written by Laura herself and is therefore not acceptable as an independent third-party source. I may be wrong, but not all the time. I'd be very hesitant about throwing sockpuppet accusations around lest you find yourself WP:BOOMERANGed. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole point is to show how the author understood the creation of their avatar. This is valuable information for the topic, and to remove it is absurd.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And the whole point of Wikipedia is that information submitted here be verifiable by independent third-party sources. Please see here. I strongly suggest you WP:STICK DROP THE STICK lest you find yourself blocked again. I'll not comment further on this matter as it is apparent you are a classic example of WP:IDHT. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  20:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Aloha 27, I just wanted to alert you that the JT LeRoy page has recently been edited to a large degree. I remember that you at one point were following along and seemed to have an understanding that there was effort being made to create a narrative that diminished the fraud aspect of the controversy. Any thoughts or help to get it back to something more honest would be appreciated. I'm new to Wikipedia. Msturm 8 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: MV Confederation has been accepted
 MV Confederation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Joe Roe (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=MV_Confederation help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
hey from the trivandrum page many photos and information are removed how do we restore it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaya3menon (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you from PacificOcean
Hi there Aloha27, Thank you for your remarks on my page regarding seeming to be a Single Purpose Account. I have made many edits to the JT Leroy and Laura Albert pages after having spent hours and hours on the Live Chat. As you can see on the Talk pages, I posted my edits and made it available for discussion, and waited 3 weeks before making edits after there had been no objections. I have spoken with numbers of volunteer editors via Live Chat that have guided me along every step of the way, to ensure that what I was doing was in compliance.

In regards to having a specific agenda of a Single Purpose Account- no I do not. In the interest of transparency, and since I've been only editing odds and ends here and there over the years, I realized only recently that I should register and have an account with a trackable username. I have been careful about making edits to these two pages because I introduced myself on chat and said straight-up that I had been brought to the subject from meeting Laura Albert in person many years ago, but the reason I have been editing the pages is because since meeting her, I sought Wikipedia to learn more about her and the subject, and noticed that it was both very complicated, confusing, and full of vague accusations. Over the years since, I have followed the subject passively and recently when I reviewed the pages, I realized upon a later glance that the pages were poorly written, confusing, and accusatory. So I took it upon myself to, with guidance of editors, clean up the pages in the interest of objectivity and furthering the quality of Wikipedia as a source on living persons.

If you would like to discuss any of my edits, please engage me on the Talk page. I hope not to have to make many more, as it seems in the past there were back and forth between Mstrum and another user, and then more recently Mstrum (I believe it was that user?) reverted the edits of SwisterTwister, a volunteer, through multiple rounds, without discussion. I have been told on LiveChat by a volunteer editor that I should finally make changes directly myself, and that if they kept being reverted without discussion, I should return to Live Chat to report. I have no interest in spending more time on this! Thanks! PacificOcean (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a dispute page "Talk:JT LeRoy#Discuss_with_User:_76.21.32.54". about this topic. Just wanted to let you know in case you want to add any thoughts. Msturm 8 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Aloha, I am really open to people watching my edits or helping the situation in any way. The balance is very inaccurate on the page and has been for years. I have noticed for a long time. I do know a lot about this topic, that's why the imbalance has seemed quite glaring. Thanks again. Msturm 8 (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

HRM stuff
Hi there, we have not run into one another that much but I see your contributions on the Halifax article. I did an edit and organization of Halifax related pages and templates the last couple weeks, especially the template Template:Halifax,_Nova_Scotia and the Halifax Transit page. The pages linked off of the top 2 sections of and the HRSB article got some editing. If you have a chance to have a look another couple sets of eyes would be useful! Thanks, WayeMason (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Aloha27!


Happy New Year! Aloha27, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

 Class 455 ( talk  | stand clear of the doors!)''' 17:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Sunnyvale
Don't they know, Sunnyvale is in Truro. People these days! WayeMason (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing of List of Warehouse Districts
Hey, Aloha27. I saw you took away an edit I made on List of warehouse districts, where you took out that I put EaDo, Houston from the list. Your reasoning stated it didn't have a reliable resource connected to it. I added it back on the condition that the list doesn't include references on any of the items on the list, so a new item shouldn't be taken out, if the criteria doesn't follow on the other items. Thank you, ParaguaneroSwag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaguaneroSwag (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Captain Smith's actions on Titanic article
The following should be deleted and removed from the Titanic article;

As Smith began to grasp the enormity of what was about to happen, he appeared to have become paralysed by indecision. He had ordered passengers and crew to muster, but from that point onward, he failed to order his officers to put the passengers into the lifeboats; he did not adequately organise the crew; he failed to convey crucial information to his officers and crew; he sometimes gave ambiguous or impractical orders and he never gave the command to abandon ship. Even some of his bridge officers were unaware for some time after the collision that the ship was sinking; Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall did not find out until 01:15, barely an hour before the ship went down,[88] while Quartermaster George Rowe was so unaware of the emergency that after the evacuation had started, he phoned the bridge from his watch station to ask why he had just seen a lifeboat go past. Smith did not inform his officers that the ship did not have enough lifeboats to save everyone. He did not supervise the loading of the lifeboats and seemingly made no effort to find out if his orders were being followed.

This is just one of those often repeated myths accepted as hearsay; the actual fact is that Smith was quite active from all eyewitness accounts in overseeing the loading and launching of the boats. There is no evidence he suffered a breakdown or became paralyzed by indecision. The truth is that Captain Smith was extremely busy during the whole evacuation. The text has always been here from old sources, along with other questionable stuff that was simply portrayed in the 1997 'Titanic' movie... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.247.125 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 78.144.247.125 You do realize you are asking for sourced material to be removed, and replaced with content that violates WP:V, as well as WP:OR, right? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 23:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not the first time that Wikipedia has removed information about the Titanic that is false. For years, it was said in the article that John Jacob Astor was one of the people killed by the forward funnel and even used a source for it; it was removed when that story was disproved by Titanic historians. The Jack Phillips article maintained for many years that he died on boat B (depsite evidence to the contrary) and has now used sources to disprove that story. The Titanic sinking article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering captain Edward Smith. The "Sinking of the RMS Titanic" describes Smith's actions as indecisive and it claims that he displayed a lack of crew management skills in the aftermath of Titanic hitting the iceberg, but his biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he performed his duties in an admirable fashion given the extraordinarily difficult circumstances and never lost his cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.247.125 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Teahouse discussion
Hey Aloha - I appreciate you being willing to help out on the Teahouse discussion. I was finding myself pretty lost on the policy. I was specifically confused about this: since I'm a wikiHow editor as well, is it considered COI for me to make edits to the article on wikiHow for anything more than copyediting? Galactic-Radiance (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Charlene McMann
Here we go again .... --Cahk (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

News
This might interest you: Aloha 27. - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expanding the article! I have added even more, including your photo. - Ahunt (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Dartmouth skyline
Hi, the fact that the photo is my own has nothing to do with my reason for wanting it changed. The current photo is objectively an awful representation of Dartmouth, and a real skyline picture is deserved. None exist on the Wikimedia Commons that I have been able to find. Also, it's clear the talk page on that wiki is hardly ever used, so why not allow the change of picture to one that is more representative and current? ---RoshanMcG (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Responded to on your talk page here   Aloha27   talk  03:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You're mistaken! All my edits are in order to enhance the pages that I have edited (see the Tallest buildings in Halifax, Nova Scotia thread before and after my edits... many buildings had no or otherwise bad pictures).  In some of those cases, my own pictures are the only ones that exist on the Commons and so I used them.  I am not at all opposed to better pictures being put in their place once uploaded.  Do you honestly not think that the photo I added (the cropped one, at that) isn't an improvement?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoshanMcG (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you agree now this photo is worth being changed? --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoshanMcG (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, IMO you screwed the proverbial pooch with the submitted IP comment on the topic. One supporting vote I don't believe to be consensus. Regards  Aloha27  talk  22:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheetos
Aloha, you undid my material without giving a reason. Do you have one? I notice a lot of rollbacks to anything that is unflattering to the President, without reasons being given. Keizers (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Jennifer Murphy
Instead of removing content due to what you determine sources to be like "tabloid", why not instead improve it? It is much more productive! Also, it appears that not only are all your edits to the article regarding the incident of the ninja video, they all appear to be reverts instead of improvements. Not just questionable stuff, but also the sourced stuff. Three times you have reverted sourced content on the matter, regardless of quality. In the nicest way possible, do you have a vested interest in the article or the topic in question? I ask because this behaviour isn't stewardship-like. I steward many article and welcome all editors to add content to them, so long as they provide references or expand from existing references. If they are substandard, I find better ones. You really should have, instead of putting in to summary that disputing you "IMO" in the talk page, opened a discussion on the talk page on the matter yourself and tagged myself and any other relevant users on the matter. Wikipedia is built upon collaboration not individuality. Thanks. UaMaol (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Responded to on the subject talk page here. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  12:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Dartmouth Page
Thanks to you and the other editors and to Wiki on this Dartmouth page ....[edit] Warrenwesson (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)I looked at the tutorial on how to use "TALK" .. after I had been banned for edit warring. Probably should have looked at it first before even starting to edit.

In fact Dartmouth has ALWAYS been known as a bedroom community of Halifax, and I was trying to get to the neighborhoods as being the communities given that having lived in most of the urban neighborhoods and some rural, Dartmouth North and Portland Estates and Forest Hills don't generally feel a sense of community between them. . . but feel community within themselves.

I could not figure out how to explain what I was trying to do. Not a big deal. Warrenwesson (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thanks for cleaning up Stylized's disruption. The guy never gives up.

Sro23 (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC) 

- Thanks! It's been awhile since I saw him around. Take care Man.  Aloha27   talk  02:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Stylized SPI
-- if we're blocking the user that was on assorted talk pages the other day, they're back again. I can't say I've familiarized myself with SPI, so I'm uncomfortable reporting it etc, but since that IP was blocked under that SPI... That said, they seem to be denying they are the sock, and seemingly now working in good faith... Your call. Keira 1996  12:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * -- spotted this as well. Thanks. Keira  1996  12:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That IP address
I have to be even more annoying than them now by commenting that they were not actually blocked from editing at the time when they posted on SMcCandlish's—and Corinne's—talk page ... as far as I can tell. Further to this, they were actually acknowledging their wrongdoings. Believe me: I do not support their behaviour, but removing their discussions for reasons which are not actually the case will not help. Our aim should be to accept them back in two days, following the expiry of their block. Removing posts will lead to anger. We really do not need that. What I would like to see is their posts restored. The relevant editors may/may not reply to their requests for help. I shall certainly be doing so. Policy is wrong if it stops us. They look to be considering account creation, which will undoubtedly make communications with them a lot easier. I do not know what you think about this; let me know what you plan on doing and your reasons for this. Regards, – Sb2001 talk page 17:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Socks of blocked/banned users as I understand policy are to be immediately reverted, blocked and further communications from them ignored. Please see here Regards,   Aloha27   talk  18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That page is all very well, but it does not say that edits before the block is effected should be removed. I would understand you reverting TP contributions if they were written after the user had been blocked, but—as far as I can see—they were blocked after 3 pm, and made the edits before noon. Do you know whether I would be able to make a case for their un-blocking, partly so that I can respond to their queries, and partly so we can offer them recognition for accepting their wrongdoings? To address the issue of socking: the SPI case seems to have no definite conclusion, ie the closer did not assert that they were a sock of a banned user. Therefore, as I see it, we should not be using language to the effect of 'they are a sock ... ignore them'. Reading the policy does suggest that we are only to apply consequences for banned sockpuppetry should we have irrefutable evidence/checkuser approved assurances they they are in fact another editor in disguise. : I think we could benefit from some clarity in regards to whether you are blocking them for their behaviour, or socking. Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this. Stop me now, before I take it too far! Pinging the other main contributors to discussions surrounding this IP, for reference . – Sb2001 talk page 20:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be sure, I blocked those IPs as sockpuppets of the banned user . They were clearly the same individual: same location (Utah) and same focus (obsession of MOS and grammar). GABgab 20:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * - There are a few indeffed/outright banned individuals that I (as well as others who have been around for awhile) have no problem whatsoever picking out of a crowd. Good day to you.   Aloha27   talk  21:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I sympathize, (I did, after all, spend a couple of hours trying to "work on" the IP user in question).  However, this isn't really a matter of giving someone the benefit of the doubt after a short block expires.  This is a  user socking again and again to continue editwarring over style trivia, in ways that directly defy the reliable sources, which is disruptive.  It just has to stop, no matter what the intent/faith of the behavior is in the mind of the user doing it.  In an ideal world, the user would listen, shape up, and appeal to have their ban lifted, and would be genuine about it all, with the community agreeing the user had changed.  We don't live in that world.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry! Would you mind leaving the IP's contributions, for reference. You can instantly close the discussion, but it is useful to be able to refer back to them. You may transfer them to my talk page if you do not want them here. Thanks. – Sb2001 talk page 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Sock edits of indeffed or banned accounts are to be reverted and ignored. It is as if it never happened. We are done here. Closing. Regards   Aloha27   talk  22:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

SMPTE color bars (talk page) revert
I don't get why you used rollback in this particular situation? The edit itself didn't appear to be vandalism. Could you please explain since there might be something that I don't know about? Sak ura Cart elet  Talk 00:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That IP is being used by a blocked user to evade their block. See Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD" and WP:EVADE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page here. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  01:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * :   Aloha27   talk

to
 * :  Aloha27</b>  talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @Anomalocaris. Done. Thank you. <b style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  13:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended confirmed edit requests
Remember to set when answering edit request please. Additionally you could utelise EPH in order to automate the process —  <font face="Ariel" color="red" size="3px">IVORK  <font face="Ariel" color="Green" size="1px">Discuss 06:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of user comments
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Frankie MacDonald, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SolarFlash (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Your comment at Talk:Frankie MacDonald was removed as it was nothing more than your continued petty griping from when you were known around here as User:Caper454.

Your nominating the entry for deletion on 2 April 2014 was rejected and you obviously still have a problem with that decision. That's unfortunate. Get over it. Regards, <b style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  15:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Get over it". Next time, maybe take your own advice instead of initiating pointless investigations that do nothing but waste people's time. Cheers. SolarFlash (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see you ending up blocked just as you were under your previous account. Just a matter of time. Regards <b style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  17:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

CKJR
The "AM station data" template is not for use on Canadian radio stations. It links to US FCC data, which can be and often is incorrect when it comes to Canadian stations, because Canadian stations have no obligation to inform the FCC of technical changes to their transmitter power or frequency — so that template is only for use on US stations, and not on Canadian ones. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry! Not exactly sure what occurred there but I apologize for reverting your edit. It certainly was not done intentionally. Cheers, <b style="color:#2B65EC;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  22:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks

Erwhi4129 (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>