This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please show me your monobook to revert easier. Thanks! -- Wissahickon Creek ^talk 20:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Alex9891/monobook.js. You can just copy it into your own. You might need Mozilla Firefox to use the rollback though. -- Alex ( Talk) 20:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alex!-- Wissahickon Creek ^talk 12:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, thank you for voting and commenting on my RfA last month. In a few months after I graduate, I'll have time to "prepare," (I won't be on Wikibreak next time) and visit xFD everyday like you suggested. Do you have any tips or suggestions for me? Thanks again, X Mac Davis ( SUPERDESK| Help me improve)

Hi,

Discussion is good for reassurance. :) My problem with anyone's desire to IAR speedy delete is this: outside of the CSDs (which now include spam and copyvios, as well as nonsense, attacks, etc.), there is no real reason to speedy delete an article. The CSDs are very comprehensive. When a candidate says, "I'll speedy delete to stop time-wasting", I am afraid what he means is, "I'll delete things just because I've never heard of them, don't like them, or think they are stupid." This is potentially disastrous (for obvious reasons, I hope.)

There are a very few circumstances where IAR might justify speedy deletion; I'll avoid mentioning specifics, lest I run afoul of WP:BEANS, but they would involve protecting privacy and preventing illegal activity. Barring very extreme cases, though, use of IAR to speedy delete will just make the deleter a problem, because all of the folks who know about, like, and appreciate those things that might be speedy deleted will be upset that they didn't get a chance to speak their minds at AfD. When in doubt, don't delete, a cornerstone of deletion policy, weighs heavily against ever IAR speedying anything. Thoughts? Best wishes, Xoloz 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. My thoughts are in that penultimate sentence - When in doubt, don't delete. Hopefully I will never have to ignore all rules, deletions are not an area I have particularly shown interest in working. If you need anymore clarification please let me know! Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Alex9891 Thank you very much for voting in my request for adminship. In the end, not many people let their opinion be known, and I didn't get the mop just yet. I have already begun acting on the issues brought up by the community, and will continue to do so. If you have any more suggestions for me, feel free to let me know. Once again, thank you. Alex - thanks for your help and first vote! :) — Gary Kirk // talk! 09:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my thanks for your support in my successful RfA, which I was gratified to learn passed without opposition on October 25, 2006. I am looking forward to serving as an administrator and hope that I prove worthy of your trust. With my best wishes, -- MCB 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

i noticed that you edited the captain shreve high school page that i did by taking ot the image. thank for taht i didn't even know i did that. i sort of new to wiki so im not entirely sure what all these buttons do i must of acciddently clicke done and screwed up. thanks for fixing it -- Bwyard 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I'm heartened to see from your answer to your RfA question #6 that you're not slavisly committed to applying the test templates in order; you appear to have enough common sense that I gave you my support However, I'm surprised to see you write that "if, say, an editor was vandalising pages, the rules are that they should be given up to four warnings, then reported and blocked." The rules are supposed to say to use some common sense—do they say to use all the templates? If so, let me know where so I can fix it. -- SCZenz 20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the rules are written but I said four warnings is enough, because {{test4}} states it is the user's final warning, and after that there are no further warnings. They do not have to all be used, for instance {{blatantvandal}} can be used on its own. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. There has often been a tendency for some editors to formalize the use of test1, ..., test4 as being required, but of course that's not the case. I was just making sure that instruction creep hadn't reared its ugly head somewhere. ;) -- SCZenz 21:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.-- Jusjih 09:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ^{( talk . contribs)} 11:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A large majority of the current warnings are listed on WP:UTM, but if you ahve a look around at the project page you will see ideas, and alot of discussion subjects on where we intend to go. Try here. Good luck Khukri ^{( talk . contribs)} 11:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I am bemused by your deletion proposal for Lane End Primary school as it appears you have been contributing to it through correction of spelling mistakes, also due to the fact I notice you created the CHHS article which survived a similar AFD process. Do you wish all school articles to go through a baptism of fire to survive?!

I am an Alumnus of both schools and Manchester University for what it's worth.

-- Alex 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The CHHS article was AFDd in bad faith, by an alumnus. The high school is about 6 times bigger than Lane End, and it dates back to 1785. I AfDd Lane End because it is odd that it is the only primary school in the area to have an article - why not Hursthead for instance, the biggest one, or Thorn Grove where Tim McInnerny went? If you would be willing to make articles for all the schools in the area, not just a one off I'll withdraw the AfD, as you seem to be expanding the article quite well. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you its more notable. I also see no problem with the creation of the other primary schools in the area but I do not have the full knowledge relating to them! I dont see why this can't be left open for further development of a section of wikipedia relating to Cheadle Hulme. I have created a new Category:Cheadle Hulme that is also expanding nicely. I always thought I grew up in a boring area, but it seems there is more to it than I gave it credit for. -- Alex 14:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

well can you put ((retired)) on my userpages of both accounts. bye Amkid

Sorry I can't, your page is protected to me. -- Alex ( Talk) 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert to my userpage. Your RfA seems to be going well - hope you're not too stressed out by it all! riana_ dzast a 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a question. If it was a link to the history in Spanish, why was my change reverted? -- 67.142.130.27 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so links must be in English. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 19:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is the English Wikipedia, then why does it link to that page in the first place? -- 67.142.130.27 19:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but the fact is it must be written in English here. Perhaps you should remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex9891 ( talk • contribs)

Ok, then I'll remove it and see if the Spanish Wikipedia has a a link to it, then add it there? -- 67.142.130.27 19:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems OK. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. :) -- 67.142.130.27 19:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

• Administrators' reading list
• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrators' Noticeboard

• Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 21:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I'm totally the first to congratulate you. Don't forget though, you have to block at least six sockpuppets of banned users during your first week, or you get desysopped. -- Mr. Lefty ( talk) 22:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ack, that might be difficult :) Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats and best of luck. Yanksox 01:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To a user who shall surely become one of our best vandal-fighting admins - congratulations, and all the best! riana_ dzast a 07:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just notice your RfA passed congrats, I imagine even the people that had their doubts will in time change their mind ▪◦▪ =Sirex 98= 08:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Looks like the new administration is having some fun already. Way to go! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice use of your new admin powers to protect that page! - Mike | Trick or Treat 02:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Meh, sort out the problems on the talk page now. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 02:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also my cat did it, I've already given him a stern lecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromo SDR ( talk • contribs)

HI, I've had discourse with the creator of this. It looks like a vanity piece about a not notable person. Could you look at it? I think it needs to go to AfD. Thanks Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It gets 780 google hits, about this person in particular so I think she is notable. I think the article just needs some sources, as it has none at the moment. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 15:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I know you work against vandalism too, thought might want to be on the watch for this middle name vandal, w/dynamic IP address

• User talk:85.210.236.29 Who is report:
• User talk:85.210.235.250 Who is report:
• User talk:85.210.253.240 <-- today's lastest attacks Who is report:

Not sure how many other IP's the vandal had edited under.

Makes edits to include fictitious middle names in articles such as Sinbad (actor), Howard Brown, Stuart Parnaby, Darius Vassell, Mark Copani, Matt Wiese, Tommy Dreamer and many others.

• Mostly English football players and American professional wrestlers. also others

In one odd case the article Arnold Schwarzenegger, the vandal added the fictitious middle name Avlot, another user corrected it with a sourced real middle name of Alois. been a real pain thanks ▪◦▪ =Sirex98= 16:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for using this method in order to engage in discussion. I am quite certain that there is a more appropriate avenue within this "talk page" in which to leave a message. Unfortunately, that method is not transparent -- at least to one who is generally unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia's internal communicative structure. My hope is that, although you may at first be outraged by what I am sure is an unconventional form of communication, you will read the content of this message before assuming I am doing anything the least bit inappropriate.

Now, to the subject at hand. You have apparently tracked my IP number (which you have every right and cause to do) in order to indirectly send me two messages regarding my conduct with respect to the Wikipedia page featuring information about John Wayne. In your second message, you reiterated the basic tenor of your first message -- that the edit I made to the page was somehow inappropriate. You are incorrect. The edit I made was to the paragraph that began: "John Wayne won an [sic] Best Actor Oscar in True Grit . . . ." If you are a native English speaker, you are quite aware that use of the article "an" is inappropriate when the following word begins with a consonant. My repeated change from "an" to the grammatically-correct article "a" represents the sum-total of the changes I made to the article.

Please take care in the future to study the changes made to an article before immediately assuming that an un-logged individual is proceeding with improper motives.

[As you can see, I myself have edited this unconventional message entry, due to certain minor grammatical errors. Errors are a fact of life in an information-gathering venture such as this. There is no harm in their correction.]

As you are capable of sending me indirect messages by tracking my IP number, I await the favor of your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.218.188 ( talk • contribs)

My apologies. This is what the text looked like to me:

John Wayne won a [[Academy Award for Best Actor|Best Actor]] [[Academy Awards|Oscar]] in ''[[True Grit]]'' (1969).

It looked like the "a academy award" was together, when it should have been "an". However, you were right, it should have been "a". Thanks for finding that – I'll remove the warnings I gave you. -- Alex ( Talk) 17:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply and kind apologizes (I myself apologize again as well, as I remain suspicious of the propriety of communicating in this manner but likewise unsure as to a more appropriate method). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.218.188 ( talk • contribs)

Regarding this edit, I guess you don't need to substitute that template :) Good luck! -- ReyBrujo 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Thanks for pointing that out :P -- Alex ( Talk) 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. You turned down the request for semi-protection on the Japan article yesterday, citing lack of activity. The article has subsequently been vandalised 6 times already today. Does this not represent enough activity? Bobo12345 05:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is being dealt with OK. -- Alex ( Talk) 11:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

well i just wanted to say thank you for putting the semi-protection on the Mallcore page. i spent a lot of time repairing the damage that the vandals have done, and i'm very thankful to the decision you have taken. Thank you for taking the time to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia on the surface of the planet (even though its not anywhere concretely, but thats not my point)...

Thanks ^^

(i don't expect you to answer, just wanted to let you know that your efforts are appreciated!)

Zouavman Le Zouave 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lightning fast -- thank you for being so dilligant. Although I've been around almost 3 years, I've never really run across a blatant case of sockpuppetry. Can you recommend what I should do or steps I should take (or if I should at all)?

Also, can I ask for advice on an unrelated matter? An ArbCom member suggested talking to an admin about a community ban for a particular user. Where can I read about this, or whom should I try and get info from?

Your dilligance and hard work are greatly appreciated. / Blaxthos 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to the administrator's noticeboard where a more experienced administrator can deal with it. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 00:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For sockpuppetry file a report here. -- Alex ( Talk) 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow Up - Can you also protect Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident? The same anonyomous editor is trying to push the same info in volation of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BIO. Thanks. / Blaxthos 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you take it to requests for page protection please? Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I will if it becomes a problem. I wasn't sure if it would fall under the parent subject. Thanks for your time! / Blaxthos 00:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex9891, I understand that you've protected the template largely in part because of the escalated edit war that occured between two other editors and myself. However, if you look at the 'Discussion' page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Horror_Icons of the template, under "HORROR ICONS PETITION - RULES," you'll find that I have tried to come to a resolution on the situation as best I can. I will no longer edit the template but will instead allow others to do so when, as evidenced by the votes for icons, clearly indicate that those on the template belong there because of the consensus.

When I am outnumbered 2 to 1 on a subject, I'll always be the first one to break the 3RR if the other two editors work together in reverting. That's why I hope the evidence, that is, the votes supporting a character's status on such a touchy and subjective matter, will speak for itself and serve as a reference point from here on as a testament to why certain characters should or should not remain on the template.

That being said, is it possible for you to take the protection off the template? Opinions and attitudes change with the times. New icons may make the list or leave the list depending on the consensus from the editors who vote.

Do not worry about me, I will not edit the template. The editors who look at the evidence in the discussion page can and then if reverting continues, you can use the discussion board votes as a means of deciphering who disregarded the opinion of the consensus.

-Thanks ( FF7SquallStrife7 09:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for protecting that article as I requested. But actually, right now Tekleni and I were again engaged in some constructive compromise building there. Would you mind giving us another chance for now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll unprotect. -- Alex ( Talk) 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for unprotecting it (for now). Do you think you could semi-protect it against sockpuppets, we've already had two.-- Tekleni 18:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have to bother you again. We got one part of the compromise implemented, but now they are again at it over another minor detail... :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I see that you have frozen the Morgellons article. I would suggest that Pez1103 be blocked again for massive deletions and reverts. He has caused nothing but trouble since he arrived. The article was developing in a stable fashion, but he came with the declared goal of making it "neutral" and "unbiased," and then proceeded to delete well-sourced information that he didn't like. He's a newbie, but collaboration isn't his strong side. He is a one-article-editor, and none of us can keep up with him. He needs to spend some time gaining experience by editing other articles, but I'm afraid to even suggest it, since his behavior so far is suggestive of a m:MPOV type editor. -- Fyslee 20:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the problem with the user, either on the talk page or his talk page? I'm hesitant to block as it might be just a misunderstanding, but report here if he reverts more than three times. Take any unprotection requests to WP:RFPP. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 20:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)