User talk:Alison/Archive 77

• 10
• 20
• 30
• 40
• 50
• 60
• 70
• 72
• 73
• 74
• 75
• 76
• Archive 77
• 78
• 79
• 80
• 81
• 82

This may interest you

Talk:Johann Hari#Does "Religion: None (atheist)" imply that atheism is a religion? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Help me

Hi. I'm bored and my other check user friendInsert non-formatted text here is asleep. Will you play with me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.236.148.109 (talk • contribs)

• Please forgive me, but I'm busy at work right now, and I'm suffering from caffeine deprivation. Some other time? - Alison ^❤ 05:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. What is your opinion on IP range blocks on Wikipedia?--Karunyams (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• They're a necessary evil, unfortunately. I try not to apply them unless I really have to and then try to make them as so-called "soft" block, so pre-existing accounts are not affected - Alison ^❤ 03:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

YesAllWomen

Hi Alison, I noticed you closed the articles for deletion discussion for the article YesAllWomen. Now there seems to be a dispute going on regarding removing the “merge” tag. It’s been removed and restored multiple times and those restoring it are saying they will accept nothing less than an admin close to the merge discussion. Can you take a look? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I meant no harm in what I did, and I request that you put a 'closed discussion' on the merge discussion page at YesAllWomen, so no one gets confused. Talk:YesAllWomen#Merger_proposal Tutelary (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

That was ... really appreciated. What a mess. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:JarlaxleArtemis back?

Do you think this could be him?[1] Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Totally is. That's a proxy IP, BTW. I've just gone ahead and blocked it. Also the following accounts;

• Crafttoucha (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• NishidaniDoesBadStuffToChildren (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Antisemite gutted, vomiting blood2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 93.115.8.229 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

•  Confirmed per checkuser. I think I'm going to revdel that last one, plus some edits - Alison ^❤ 21:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CheckUser#IP information disclosure

Hi! Why did you reveal IP addresses in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Russavia? Based on the edit summaries made by the IP addresses and blocked accounts, I agree that the users seem to be the same (based on behaviour), but I think that it looks very strange to see a checkuser reveal IP address information. The IP addresses were also not mentioned in the SPI, so at least I wasn't aware of them having edited Wikipedia. Each time I have submitted a request for checkuser, the checkuser has always told that he or she won't say anything about any IP addresses I may have mentioned.

In a recent case on Commons, Commons checkuser Jameslwoodward simply mentioned that a user has used 17 different IP addresses without revealing any individual addresses, and the checkuser only described the edits made by the user in general terms. Why couldn't something similar have been done here too? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• I generally don't reveal IP information where possible, unless it's an egregious abuse of multiple accounts, and I'm seeing that clearly here. Policy allows disclosure of IP information under such circumstances. Furthermore, I've very little qualms about revealing IP addresses when they're server farms/open proxies/webhosts, etc, etc - as the vast majority of them listed are. Commons is a very different realm to enwiki as we have seen earlier today. It's not really relevant to mix realms here - Alison ^❤ 21:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

While it is correct to say that I did not list out the 17 IP addresses used by High Contrast, my disclosure was in the same thread that originally inquired about behavior regarding several of the 17, so several of the IP addresses were, in fact, revealed. The "general terms" matched exactly the behavior described earlier in the thread, so again, more was revealed than the comment above suggests.

The rules are clear that if a user edits using multiple identities -- either several user names or a combination of a user name and multiple IP addresses, then he cannot expect that the IP addresses will be kept secret. That seems to be the case here.

Although I carefully follow both the spirit and the letter of the rules regarding IP addresses, I have said several times that I don't understand the concern expressed by some. In almost all cases, an IP address will locate a user only down to a fairly wide geographic area -- in my own case, the Boston metropolitan area, some 3 million people -- and a customer of one of the largest ISPs in the country. Knowing a person's IP address can't reveal anything more without a court order. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 15:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Persian poetry

Hi. Right now, the topic for Persian poetry redirects to Persian literature and is a subdivision of that article. But it has the capacity of having a separated article. What should I do to create Persian poetry article by itself? Bbadree (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi there. If it were me, I'd create a draft article called "Persian poetry", or create User:Bbadree/Persian poetry in my own userspace, and work away on it there. Then, once I'd consider it good enough, I'd move it into place over the existing redirect, leaving a reference to Persian literature somewhere in the article. You can see at the top of this page, I have a handy record of my own draft articles I'm "cooking" right now. Best of luck with the article, and let me know if you need any help with anything - Alison ^❤ 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TS Roadmap. The discussion is about the topic Toby Meltzer. Notifying since you originally added the link years ago. Thank you. PaleAqua (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oversight

Your opinion and help here, please. [2] I deleted the page, but thought you might want to be in the loop and offer them some advice. It is their only edit so far, but still. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• No new edits yet, will just keep here for now to monitor if you don't mind. You have more experience with these matters than I do, so if he comes back, better I learn from you than try to make it up as I go along. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazon Eve

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/article18733687.ab --Craigboy (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please look into the Wikipedia page about M.S. Golwalkar

Dear Alison, I am feeling very down and afraid. Whenever I am adding some information about Golwalkar's followers and admirers in this page, it is being deleted by another contributor. That contributor is doing this again and again and again ... with uncommon frequency. I love Wikipedia ... It is like a big doorway for me (and millions like me) to know about the world. But what is this? Why my honest contributions are being deleted without telling me why was that done? I just want to tell the world that what do the followers and admirers of Golwalkar want to tell about him. But the other contributor is deleting whatever I am writing in this regard. I have left all criticisms about Golwalkar untouched. I have not deleted a single word of that contributor. I understand he wants to tell about the critical views about Golwalkar. But what is wrong if I try to tell about what the admirers of Golawlakar want to say? I requested that contributor again and again to educate me on this matter, but he is turning the whole affair in almost a battleground. He is quickly deleting whatever I am writing without any attempt to talk to me. I am having a strange feeling. I am desperately requesting your learned authority to watch what is happening. Please keep in mind that I am NOT deleting criticisms on Golwalkar. That contributor is blatantly deleting anything that refers to an admirer of Golwalkar. Golwalkar led an organization called RSS for almost 30 years. What is wrong if I try to write what RSS thinks about Golwalkar? I am not saying or doing anything by deleting when something is written in criticism to Golwalkar. Then why the other side of the story cannot be presented? Why?Arghyan Opinions (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Alison. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Trijnstel_talk 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)