User talk:Exok/Archive1

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello!
Unless I've missed something, I should start with welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your good work. I've seen you on my watchlist quite a bit recently and you certainly do seem to be doing good work. If you need any help getting around, do feel free to leave me a note. Best, HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDb
Hi, Alistair. Just a note to say that IMDb is not considered a reliable source for use in Wikipedia articles (though you'll find it in the external links section of just about every film, TV, and actor article, such is the confusing way of Wikipedia). Bradley0110 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bradley, I'm not attached to the reference and I was grateful you left the rest of my edit. I wondered if you might be misrepresenting WP:RS a little bit? The policy doesn't seem as categoric as you're suggesting. WP:RS says "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." I was using IMDb only to support the fact the play's title changed for its film release. The consensus on the WP:RS talk pages seems to be that no source can be described as always reliable or unreliable. However, thanks for taking the time to explain your decision to change the reference so fully. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC Radio 7
Hi there.

I know you have had a fair few problems with anonymous IP editors deleting a sourced statement about the audience figures for children's programming on BBC Radio 7. Turned out the last person who deleted that sentence did so from a PC registered from the BBC. I will, as should you, keep an eye on the IP addresses deleting that sentence (particularly as they will not discuss it or give any valid reasons for deleting that sentence, particularly one with a reputable source) and if needs be, citing conflict of interest guidelines, reporting it to the noticeboard if it gets bad and its continually IP addresses registered to the BBC. I had a similar problem with a local radio group deleting sourced information, a quick note to the noticeboard soon stopped them. Regards. --tgheretford (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, that doesn't surprise me Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate the support. Some people are really so petty-minded and ill-mannered on what is a fun internet project, one can only wonder what ghastly deficiencies they possess in real life. Kind regards, Ericoides (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

St. Ann's Well, Malvern
Hi Alistair. I know that you edit the encyclopedia in  good faith, but  I have reverted your recent  additions to  St. Ann's Well, Malvern. These were purely news items that are not of encyclopedic value. I realise that  you  might  find this frustrqting, but  they  are the kind ofmistskes I also made years ago  when I started contributing to  the Wikipedia. Nevertheless, you'll soon get  used to  knowing what  is the right  kind  of material  to  include. Keep up  the good work :) Kudpung (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning
My interest is in making a clean encyclopedia and maintaining  excellent  relations with the other editors who  also  respect  Wikipedia policy. . You obviously  have missed the Wikipedia guidelines that suggest that the same accuracy of typing  is NOT  required on talk  pages as for article pages. The main thing  is that  the content of a message is not compromised. I suggest  you  familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy, especially WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL,  familiarise yourself first with the user pages of people whom you  want  to bully, and  perhaps pay  more attention  to  your own editing.--Kudpung (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you got  the message and appreciated that I was  not  being WP:BITE. Ironically, I don't know of a GL that  advises well intentioned newcomers like yourself not  to  bite regular editors ;) However,  in case you  did not  see my  reply  to  your comment  about  the difficulties of being  a CCC editor, here it  is again, and it's full of tips. I  hope it  helps.--Kudpung (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Bidisha
Dear Alistair Stevenson,

This is Bidisha. I am represented by Nicola Barr at the Susijn Agency and published by Jennifer Barclay at Summersdale. I have never used my surname in my public work, do not consent to your use of my surname, and eschew it for serious, private, family reasons. Please cease reinserting it. I will not enter into negotiation with you about this, so let me state clearly that your use of my surname is against my will. I have set no precedent of using my surname in public.

Dear Bidisha

The use of a pen name or stage name is a well established practice by performers, writers and artists. Throughout Wikipedia such pen names are accompanied by the birth name they supplanted. I accept and respect your decision not to use your surname in relation to your public work, but clearly - whatever your will - you cannot control its use by others, particularly in relation to biographical material which refers to matters of fact.

Please consider Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_company#Autobiography) and respect the right of others to record issues of fact relating to your public profile. --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar!
Don't worry about ex teachers posting silly templates they don't read or understand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked in error

 * Ok, thanks --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ty--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing against consensus at Chris Noth
You're dead wrong here. If you had bothered to check out the history of this dispute, you'd have seen that the editor you're defending is pretty clearly an SPA/sockpuppet who's already been blocked once over his editing against consensus, as well as caused semi-protection of the article at least twice; that this dispute has been going on at least since March, with no other editor supporting the inclusion of this badly sourced trivia until your edit today (although it's been removed by multiple experienced editors with roughly 90,000 edits to their collective credit (not to mention that the admin who most recently semiprotected the page has more than 100,000 on en.wikipedia alone), and you ought to have noticed that two different, contradictory references have been provided in "support" of the claim (certainly problematic in a BLP) -- one of which, classictvquotes, is a copyvio site, gives no sign of being a reliable source, and isn't used as a reference in any other Wikipedia articles. You should also have paid attention to the fact that multiple editors had removed the claim as unencyclopedic trivia, so that when you added it back without making prior efforts to gain support for its inclusion, you too were editing/edit warring against consensus. Talk about a lack of collegiality. Your own comments manifest a lack of willingness to WP:AGF about the experienced editors who've been dealing with this disruption for months. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to note that barely a week ago you violated 3RR in an edit war at BBC Radio 7, as well as baselessly threatening a good faith editor with blocking because the editor inserted more recent listenership statistics into the article than you preferred. I'm less than impressed by the double standard shown. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * None of this is relevant to the issue I raised with you about not using edit summaries to attack other editors. --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking over the talk page to see if there is any foundation to your assertion that there has been "aggressive and uncollegiate name-calling, accusations and intimidation". This seems to be baseless hyperbole.  Not a big deal, but I'd like to suggest that you take things down a notch so things don't get personal.  Again, I see you made the accusation that other editors were "uncollegiate" multiple times.  Simply asserting something doesn't make it true.  If I missed something I apologize, I'd just like to point out that getting overly dramatic at best makes you seem unreasonable and at worst actually provokes other editors to respond with "uncollegiate namecalling", which is, of course, what we are trying to prevent.   Pirate Argh!!1!  01:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wanted clarification about the content I object to, might it have been less provocative to ask for it prior to accusing me of "baseless hyperbole" or "getting overly dramatic". It is not collegiate or constructive to begin an attempt at consensus building by describing edits that are clearly dear to another editor as "trivia". Suggesting an editor is engaged in "plain and simple vandalism" and a sock-puppet is what I mean by aggressive name-calling and repeatedly misrepresenting the balance of consensus (coupled with wikihounding) is what I mean by intimidation. All this happened before I joined in, but the moment I did I was accused of edit warring and had to suffer both your sarcasm and the fanciful ulterior motives you ascribed to my contribution. I avoided retailiation, focussed on content over personality and mounted an argument about verifiability and noteworthiness only for you to call my view "absurd". It's no good declaring "this isn't personal" when you are using such demeaning and emotive terms.--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize as my last comment was poorly worded.


 * I said "seems like hyperbole, but not a big deal", I am sorry if this offended. I was hoping the "seems like" followed by "not a big deal" would allow me to make my point without you taking offense.  I was obvious wrong and I retract any hyperbolic accusations.
 * I didn't realize you would take such offense at Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's wording. His point that adding material with a reference that doesn't actually reference the point is deceptive, which seemed reasonable.  But, I've been wrong before, so I understand if you saw it a different way.
 * Sovietia is editing via IPs. This is not sockpuppeting, meerly not editing without logging in, which isn't a crime.  Hullaballoo said "Just because Sovietia edits through IPs except when the article is semiprotected doesn't mean he counts as multiple editors."  This isn't an accusation of sockpuppeting.  Perhaps that accusation was made elsewhere, in which case please excuse my ignorance.  You are 100% correct on this one, the accusation is at the beginning of this thread and I didn't see it.
 * I call things trivia because I think they are, but I didn't realize that this would be offensive. I will try to think of a better way of saying that so it won't offend.
 * Kudpung did a lot of work on the article, so I don't think he's wikihounding anyone, but you may know more.
 * I apologize for the sarcasm, I was hoping to show the problem with your argument by applying it and resulting in the exact opposite conclusion. I apologize for you having to suffer my poor attempt at humor.  If the point I was trying to make still isn't clear, please ask and I will clarify without sarcasm.


 * =I hope this response has been sufficiently collegiate. Let me sincerely assure you that this isn't personal and apologize in advance if anything in this message is offensive.  I will try to avoid any demeaning terms and regret any persecution, real or perceived, that you've experienced.   Pirate Argh!!1!  07:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That reply gives me a wide and welcome exit route from this pointless squabble which I will sieze, thank you very much --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not  going  to  be so clement Alistair, because you  have a history  of deliberately doing this kind of thing. Most  of your contributions are very  good,  and people have offered you a lot of advice. Nevertheless, you appear to be still applying your old double standards. Before you  accuse others of personal  attacks, misusing  edit summaries, or not  abiding  by  GF,  you  might  wish to take a look back at  your own short history of interaction  with  other mature, experienced editors, including  those whom  you  have deeply insulted without  cause. Resorting to  righteous indignation is probably not  the best  course to  take in  a no-win situation,  and besides which, I'm  sure you'll  agree that you  like all  of us have much  better things to  do here with our keyboard time, such  as the couple of hours I  have just  spent  copyediting  the Chris Noth  article.--Kudpung (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Kudpung, I agree with the view of the editor given at WP:EAR that your personal attacks are motivated by something you took offence to in May. If you are still "incredibly angry", still seeking (as here) to reignite settled arguments in which you are not involved three months after the fact then I feel there is little hope of resolving the situation and I would ask you to stay off my talkpage. --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No re-ignition Alistair - your way  of editing and communicating  with others has never extinguished and clearly  demonstrates a pattern; the conflagration has spread to the effect  that  other mature established editors are now commenting. One even suggesting that such behaviour could be the work of a twelve year  old. It's probably  unwise to  read into  Diannaa's words that  (s)he has a sympathetic ear to  your cause - to do so  merely  confirms once more the constant  pattern of your refusal  to follow the guidelines, and then make it  look as if the ensuing unpleasantness was not  at  all  your fault.
 * We're all anonymous volunteers here, why  not  just  try  to  make Wikipedia a nicer and more encouraging  place for people to  invest  their efforts in?--Kudpung (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask you for the second time Kudpung to stay off my talkpage. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Patronising
Before criticising others, please do  not  forget  the grave injustices you  serve up  against  other editors. There appears to be a strong  consensus that  the pattern of your editing might  not  be conducive to  a happy  environement  here, especially  your manner of putting  dubious positive spisn on  on complaints to  make it  it  appear that  you  are the injured party. By continuing  to  interfere, especially  by  stalking  my  edits on  your watchpage, and looking  for every possible opportunity  for muck raking, please consider making  some  worthwhile edits to  this encyclopedia, or at  least  check  the background  and be absolutely  sure of your facts. By awarding  such  barnstars, the irony  is, and you are quite aware of it, that  you  are clearly  the one who  is taunting  for flames.--Kudpung (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would ask you for the third time Kudpung to stay off my talkpage Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

LHO lead
I know the topic is an interst of yours, so please lend your thoughts at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. I hope consensus can be reached without any chalkboard erasers being thrown. EEng (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

LHO lead
After only 3 brisk weeks of discussion, we may be reaching consensus on a lead for Lee Harvey Oswald. Can you take a look? The current proposed text is near the bottom of the talk page. EEng (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your inquiry at WP:EAR
As you may have noticed, all three users (Drunken Pirate, Kudpung, and Hullaballo Wolfowitz) have now posted comments at WP:EAR. As the level of anger they display is way out of proportion to what you have actually said and done, I can only guess they think you are a sock puppet of someone else with whom they have a further history. You did not ask for advice but I would like to suggest that you please avoid these people in the future and the articles they edit. In particular the Chris Noth page. Good luck. -- Diannaa TALK 20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Diannaa --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alistair, I wanted to thank you for your comments on the Chris Noth page. You put my argument even better than I could, and I still cannot understand why they were so adamant against the Family Guy reference. Their arrogance is amazing! I'm not going to bother with the editing anymore, but I did want to thank you for being a voice of reason on Wikipedia. Sovietia (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TyAlistair Stevenson (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish that there were more people on Wikipedia like you. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about the free flow of information. However, it seems as if there are those who go out of their way to delete information and articles, without realizing that what may not be noteworthy to them are to others. As for the Chris Noth page, there isn't any point in adding what I wanted to, since they'll just take it out as fast as I put it back. Sovietia (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OSWALD
Hello Alistair. I made a mistake editing this page. I tried to correct it but you have now compounded it. The NAS did not conclude but rather a 2001 article in Science and Justice, the journal of Britain's Forensic Science Society. The way it is now written leads us to believe that the NAS concluded that there must be 2 gunmen...but it did not...the article did. Can we revert to the original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.11.244.1 (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Sorry about that, I misread NAS for HSCA, I've undone my edit. Thanks for responding so reasonably. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Alistar

There is no prove that De Morhenschild committed suicide. This is often the usual history and a good excuse for a secret sevice like the CIA to tell  to the press when they to killed a political enemy. In the "Memories" of Willem Oltmans you can read what really happened. Read his book "Memories 1976-1977,(Papieren Tijger Publisher, The Netherlands ISBN 906728 173, see  http://www.papierentijger.org/index.php?) The story that Willem Oltmans poisoned De Mohrenschild is a very strange story, and there is no evidence for this story. As a historian I find your text not very good. Historical your wikipedia text is not very professional.

drs Peter Verbeek, Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.54.76 (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your reverts to Tom Driberg, Baron Bradwell and Henry Channon
Please read the guidelines on "see also" sections, as linked to in the edit summaries I made when deleting the link to List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. In particular note the following:


 * The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links).

Since List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom has been deleted at AFD, it is now a red link, and therefore it is entirely appropriate to remove the link from the "see also" sections of articles (or the sections, when that is the only link included).

As for your claims that my deletions were "unexplained" or "unjustified", I'm afraid this reflects poorly on your observational skills, since my edit summaries were clear – "rm redlink from see also section".

Please be more careful in your use of Twinkle in the future. Thank you. --88.109.49.41 (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I didn't realise the category had been deleted. I saw a list of highly systematic edits by an IP editor that I didn't understand and I assumed the worst. Again, I apologise. Thanks for your explanation Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your tag on [Jack Thorne(writer)]

Sorry for changing the surname. Everything is verifiable on the page and has been edited by a few people (including Jack himself). Relatively new to wiki: how can we resolve this situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.40.26 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. If you don't agree with the tag you - or anyone - can just remove it. I should have justified it on the talk page then it could have been debated. Everything in the article should be tied to a verifiable source, Jack himself is not the judge of what's correct in it: what first made me suspect a conflict of interest is that he's currently using the article as his Twitter profile. If the subject of an article is using is as self-promotion, the article is probably not the neutral summary it needs to be.
 * Thank you again for seeking to debate the problem, but if you don't like the tag just delete it, justifying yourself on the talk page if you like. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh but Alistair
If you watch the BBC election coverage (which the BBC never puts on the internet for me to show you), you can see towards the end of the broadcast Bob making a comment on the "sick" back to the taxi joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.42.104 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding so calmly. I completely accept that what you added to the article is true, but it's got to be verifiable as well. If you add a source to what you wrote, anyone who doubts it can check. This is supposedly true for almost everything added on Wikipedia, but particularly applies to potentially contentious statements made by public figures. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Information Commons, Sheffield
Thanks for the heads up, I did not intend for the article to be a guide but realise that it turned out that way! The format to which you reverted it is, I agree, more suitable. I will in time try and expand the page, if off course somebody has not already done so. Nmdale (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Thank you.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Fagan incident
I reverted your edit on the link to the actual order - there is some debate on the Wikipedia talk:External links on when is acceptable to place an external link to the body of article. I also noticed there is another link in the article which you seemed to left alone. If you wish to change that into a ref instead of link, I'd be happy but outright removal does not seem appropriate to me.--Cahk (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this message Cahk. The discussion about external links you've quoted is an informal exchange of opinion about WP:ELPOINTS, I don't think it has any bearing on the guideline which says, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". In this case - as you pointed out - there is already an external link to a primary source (a statute), adding your edit is a second link to an assertion which later relies on the same primary source as a reference. There is nothing either in the two external links or in the inline citation that supports what the article says ("it was not until 2007, when the Palace became a "designated site" for the purposes of section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, that what he did became illegal.").
 * There may be exceptions to the general guideline that external links should not normally be used in the body of the article, but I feel sure that most editors would agree an exception would not apply here where the link is to a primary source, especially when the same primary source has already been linked to and is then used as a reference. Citing a law does not indicate in any way that Fagan broke the law, did not break the law or the retrospective impact of a new law upon him. For the article to develop, an entirely new reliable source needs to be found that reports the 2005 Act made Fagan's act illegal. I think this would be hard to find since both breaking and entering and theft are illegal under common law in England, but it's just a start class article so I don't think it matters much if it contains a basically unsourced assertion or some WP:OR.
 * I agree with you it was wrong to delete your external link without also taking out the one that was already in the sentence, I apologise for this, I was on a mobile device so I was limited in the editing I could do. I've removed both links on the basis that they only direct readers to the same statute provided by the inline citation. I hope you'll allow this but I'm very happy to argue back and forth a bit further if you like Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

essays vs guidelines
Don't template the regulars is an essay. The 3RR rule is a guideline. I've tried to reach the disruptive editor repeatedly, on the talk page, in edit summaries, and on his talk page. There is a view of some at AN/I that he should be properly and (in views of some, excessively) warned before he is sanctioned, yet again, for disruptive editing. I'm being respectful of that crowd. And actually he is threatening to breach the rule. One would hope that all are working to the same end. The fact that some have been sanctioned repeatedly suggests that some mis-step with greater regularity than do others. And surely if you have followed your colleague's edits, you realize that he has come up somewhat short in the advancing sensible rational arguments area. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this message, although I'd rather have continued this discussion where it began. Your view of Off2riorob's actions seems to be based on past edits, but one participant's history doesn't invalidate an argument advanced by several editors and I'm sure issuing warnings and posting templates is the wrong way to proceed. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. But deleting "motive", by throwing out wholly inapplicable guidelines as purported basis, is in keeping with past problems/sanctions.  Deleting "assassination" is not an argument, and nothing in what he writes supports it.  Deleting "motive" is completely at odds with all manner of articles of assassinated political figures (or attempted assassinations).  Seriously -- think of five that come to mind.  And check their articles.  Not just their "assassination of" articles, but their bio articles.  Look to see, if there was any motive, if it is mentioned in their bio.  Not only does it make eminent sense to any but the most steadfast Nelson's-eyers, it's there for you to see, plain as day.  That not an "argument".  That's the sort of thing that leads to sanctions for disruptive editing when brought to sysops' attention.  As it has many times now.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Respond to content, not to contributor. As I suggested on your user page, sifting an editor's history for evidence of personal bias and constantly referring to previous sanctions in an attempt to devalue an argument makes you look bad, not him. A point should be carried by its own rationale, not by attacking the characteristics of the person who opposes you. With all due respect to your experience on Wikipedia, I'd really prefer to end this discussion here. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hahaha. Now THAT is funny.  Many thanks.  Made my day.  You started off the discussion suggesting that I focus on precisely what you, in our closing conversation, say I should not focus on (Don't template the regulars).  Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You quickly deleted it from your user page for some reason but I started the discussion saying,

RE:Geoffrey Burgon
Hello, yes, it didn't link to the page I expected: this was the relative guideline I meant to link to. Thanks. Rob (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the project's style guide applies to new articles. The closing remarks at the relevant RFC state "Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive." Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the infobox has only just been added to the article by User:Stubies0210, purely to add an image (which is likely to be deleted soon anyway). The current consensus is that infoboxes are not useful on articles about classical composers. Rob (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, I didn't realise the infobox was such a recent addition.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!
Not really sure what I did to deserve it - but thanks! Etron81 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, sorry if it wasn't clear. I admired the way you responded to an arbitrary challenge with calmness. Sockpuppetry is a deadly accusation, to take it seriously without taking it personally is a skill that deserves recognition. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem - it did take me by surpise. Anyway - thanks for the kind words! Etron81 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

no pic 2011
Hi Alistair, many thanks for you supporting comment when I was in need of a little support. Best wishes to you and yours throughout 2011, happy new year from Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Same to you, Rob. I'm very glad you're back. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Jon Sopel
Must confess I wasn't entirely sure about it, but as it's been on Commons for a few weeks I thought I would go for it. If there is a problem with the picture then it could do with someone familiar with procedures at Commons looking at it and deciding what to do. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. For some reason, in Chrome the old image was appearing in a huge version at the end of the article. So far as screen caps go, it would make life much easier if photographing television images of people led to copyright free portraits, but it definitely doesn't. I don't know anything about the Commons so I can't help out there, sorry. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm sure someone will sort it out. I might post a message about it on the Jon Sopel talk page. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast! Thank you HJ Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Done
I removed the language on my user page which bothered you. Cheers, Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, it was just a distraction from what you're saying. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Pointer1 Help!
This one keeps reverting almost any updates to TV articles, please help by raising this on a talk page. It's impossible to update articles with him keep reverting on a whim. I tried to add an update on the new 5 idents but he's at it again.
 * Thanks for your message. Why not raise it yourself if there's a problem? So far as I know for the ultimate sanction - dispute resolution - there has to be a history of an ongoing problem. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have but he's prone to edit wars and seems to be a compulsive reverter. His talk page says it all but he makes sure he stays low level enough to avoid attention.
 * Maybe the advice here will help: WP:AVOIDEDITWAR Alistair Stevenson (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- I'm updating an actor's page (correcting his date and place of birth) and adding a website reference to an official actor's directory which clearly shows his date of birth and place of birth and this chap keeps removing without even checking the official reference given. 90.192.255.53 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Thanks for your message and the reference that you've added. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)