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.

Not that I have anything against the decisions you made to certain RFPP's (such as Japan and Lion) but I just wanted to clear some stuff up with you. You may not agree with me, and that's perfectly fine. I personally think that saying "It's been alright for today, no need for protection at the moment." is not a totally sufficient reason for protection. I usually try to look at overall article history (last 50,100 edits) and try to see trends that would clearly indicate if the vandalism is getting worse, and who's behind the vandalism. I don't think that you can really say "It's been alright for today" because there are usually lapses in editing of certain articles. If we were to judge what articles should be protected and what shouldn't based on editing at the exact moment, that wouldn't be very effective at all. I semi-protected both Lion and Japan because they have been hit with vandalism more than a dozen times each in the last 50 edits (which translates to the past few days). However, there are times when looking at the times of recent edit history is effective. For example, look at [1]. I denied the user's request for semi-protection because it was apparent that the vandalism to the userpage had ceased, and it appeared that those vandals were not going to come back and vandalize. The last edits to that page were made nearly two days ago, and so I used that timeframe to judge my decision regarding semi-protection. That's all I have to say about that. Anyway, keep up the great work as admin so far! You're doing a good job with the tools. =) Nishkid 64 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. About the Lion article - I did look through the history, and to me it appeared to be mostly one vandal, User:TaylorBrown, and previous to that I didn't think there was much. I said "today" because I felt there was little point in protecting a page which vandalism had appeared to have stopped for the most part two days previously. As it appeared to carry on after I declined the request, it appears semi-protection was in order. Again with the Japan article, it was not vandalised much at all at the point I declined it (as far as I could tell, people weren't using edit summaries) and only afterwards it started needed semi-protecting. Anyway, thanks for your message, I'll bear it in mind. -- Alex ( Talk) 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed your self removal from Esperanza, and your comment:

Just out of curiosity, why do you think this is? Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . 3} 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it appears that way. It's a nice idea I guess, but I've decided it isn't something I want to be part of anymore. -- Alex ( Talk) 11:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the Semi-Protections for Alcoholics Anonymous.-- Twintone 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was busy making some constructive edits to the page when you protected it. Are you sure it is necessary to protect it? There seems to be a discussion going on already. Thanks. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting the page! - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

When Mike is done, can the page be fully protected again? I'd like for the investigation into Caloon2000's POV edits and possible meat/sock puppetry to be given a chance before he/she starts doing mass reverts, ruining Mike's work, and the work of other editors who have been watching/protecting this page from vandals for days now. Thanks. -- Weirdoactor 22:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really aware of what editing disputes are going on as I just dropped by to edit the page, but I'm more or less done for now, so if there are any serious editing disputes going on, then by all means, go ahead and protect it. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 22:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the page. Could you please revert the edit by the anon before you protected though? It was vandalism. Also, please remove the duplicate picture of the children in Bonaire in the Halloween around the world section. Thanks! - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, the version which is online now is highly partisan and in violation of the NPOV rule. I redited the article and created a balanced version using neutral wording. However, the version which user User:Kathryn NicDhàna inserted and which is now online is highly partisan uses POV wording "Other Christians get very emotional about Halloween", "A response among some fundamentalist Christians" "Some fundamentalists consider" and removed most of the references, links and literature. From 12 books a single one is supporting the position held by many christians. Most of the others have been removed by User:Kathryn NicDhàna [ [2]] The article which is now online is in clear violation of the NPOV rule and can not stand as it is. Please revert to a NPOV version (one of the versions which were online at Halloween eve). Thanks Caloon2000 08:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you wait for consensus on the talk page. Remember the protected version is not necessarily the "correct" one. -- Alex ( Talk) 10:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In this case I would suggest to insert a notice that this page is not neutral and does not represent a consensus. (NPOV notice). Thanks! Caloon2000 16:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As is evident on the talk page, Caloon2000 is the only one blocking consensus. And as you can see from his talk page, he has been warned by another admin for violating the "undue weight" clause of NPOV. He has also violated 3RR and is now posting vandalism warnings on my page, and the pages of others who reverted his edits. I am perfectly fine with changing "Other Christians get very emotional" to "Other Christians are concerned" or "critical" or something similar. And if "fundamentalist" is not NPOV, perhaps "evangelical" or similar. What the other editors and I are not ok with is letting Caloon2000 re-insert the inaccurate, hate speech links and content he insists are NPOV. Thanks for your work on this, Alex. -- Kathryn NicDhàna 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the page. It's a pity that this became necessary but the page needed a holiday from juvenile and disruptive edits.-- Ianmacm 22:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for protecting Halloween. The last edit before protection was an IP vandalism, changing the pope who instigaed celebrations in 835 from Pope Gregory IV to Pope Boniface IV. As Pope Boniface IV wasn't alive in 835, could you revert this edit. Thanks, Addhoc 22:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Addhoc 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting this article. :) - Xeon25 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └  OzLawyer /  talk ┐ 13:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex, I ask you because you seem to be making a lot of the RFPP decisions.

I created a few articles related to a radio show I have in St Cloud, MN. They have been the target of vandalism many times over the year the pages were up. Recently the pages were deleted (notability) and it was suggested in one of the discussions that I move the info to my user page instead. I did so and the vandals followed. The vandals are typically new users or anon. The anons IP addresses I track and some of them match IPs of vandals of other non-Wikipedia sites related to the show. The new users have typically between 1 to 10 edits and about half of them are accounts that are older than a week.

Recently they have begun a trend outside of Wikipedia...personal threats to me and my family. Here they have begun making edits (which still can be viewed even if reverted) that contain personal private information. While I strongly request protecting my user page so that only I and admins can edit it, I more strongly ask for a rollback to the 08:27, October 17, 2006 edit to protect my anonymity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnyakko ( talk • contribs)

Do you mean you want the revisions after 08:27, October 17, 2006 to be deleted? -- Alex ( Talk) 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you attention. -- Tony 16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

...for your nod of support during my recent RfA. If you ever need any help from a fellow admin, a pair of fresh, disinterested eyes to review an article, or need help whacking vandals with a Millwall brick, do not hesitate to holler over yonder. Cheers. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 14:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, first time user who needs unprotected to make some changes to early life about parentage, talk about his military techniques concerning his revolutionary echulon formations, and the makeup of his army.

-Thanks, Trd89 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trd89 ( talk • contribs)

Thanks a lot for semi-protecting this article. I'll get down to restoring it straight away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gimlei ( talk • contribs) .

I was wondering if you took a look at the current version of Mohammad Khatami's reforms before protecting it. The version you have protected HEAVILY violates NPOV and it even has the pov tag removed from the beginning of the article. Also, User:Patchouli which has created this article and has been it's sole editor until now, has a reputation for POV pushing and contributing negatively biased material about the middle east in wikipedia. Please see the following links for evidence about his misconduct: User_talk:LittleDan#POV_pushing and Talk:Mohammad_Khatami#Patchouli_edits and User_talk:LittleDan#hello. You can also take a look at the user's talk page and see how another administrator (LittleDan) has failed to convince him to abide by wikipedia policies. It seems that nobody cares to put an effort into stopping him. Your protecting the page in it's current form is encouraging abusers such as User:Patchouli to take advantage of loop holes in wikipedia regulations. Therefore I request that you revert the page to it's previous verion (just take a quick look, it's a matter of common sense, you don't need to even know anything about the topic of the article to understand the *heavy* POV pushing in the current version). I am also asking you as a wikipedian to please help to put a stop to User:Patchouli's abuses. It seems that no one has the power to stop him from sabotaging wikipedia. It's really frustrating. Barnetj 13:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way I just read Patchouli's comment on the request for protection page! I can't believe this guy and I really can't believe how he's getting away with it! He is accusing *me* of creating sock puppets and not being reasonable!!! My god! You should investigate evidence before taking action on accusations. First of all, please read the evidence that I have provided in my previous post about User:Patchouli. Second of all take a look at the history of the article to see that I have only edited the article in one occasion and afterwards I reverted it only once because Patchouli had reverted ALL of my edits without any explanation on the talk page. That's it. Barnetj 13:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Please discuss on the talk page. Thank you. -- Alex ( Talk) 14:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Would you help with the problem then. It's not limited to this article. The other party is stuborn and bullying. His list of contributions to wikipedia almost entirely consists of inserting negative POV-pushing remarks about different subjects related to the middle east. His history of misconduct has shown that there is no reasonable hope to reach a resolution with him through dialogue. Please advise me on how to prevent him from continuing his sabotage of wikipedia middle east articles . I hope you care enough to answer. Barnetj 14:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Before doing anything else, do your best to civilly talk to the user. As I am relatively inexperienced with this kind of thing, perhaps you could raise the issue at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct to see what other users think. Leave me a message if you need thing else and I'll do my best to help. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 15:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Meanwhile could you please add a { {pov} } tag at the top of the article. If visitors are going to see the current version, there should at least be a pov tag on the article. Barnetj 16:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the pov tag. btw, you might want to read my reply to your comment in the talk page. Barnetj 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Seen it. -- Alex ( Talk) 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi protect on the Matt Drudge page. Reverting the same sorts of vandal edits from IP users over and over again was getting old. I was actually going to request one today anyway. Thanks for being so proactive. Caper13 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you unprotect WP:AUM? That page has been unanimously rejected many times, but Netoholic has persistently tried to resurrect it for disruptive purposes. He has been blocked from editing it in the past because of disruption. Please read through the talk page and page history before fulfilling a "user request". — Omegatron 05:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

From the protection policy page: Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing – you appeared to be. That is why I unprotected the page. I'll go ahead and reprotect it, if the user is causing problems. Perhaps requesting page protection is what you should have done? I seriously do not want to wheelwar, especially in my second week of being an admin. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 12:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry; you're fine. He's an expert at convincing random admins that he's been wronged and they need to help him out. Just remember that you always need to discuss with an admin before undoing their actions. See Wikipedia:Wheel war — Omegatron 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I added to Millwall brick. The article needs photos of how its made and the variation with string and nail. Since you took the original photo, perhaps you would be so kind as to take and upload the additional photos mentioned in the article. -- Jreferee 07:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh wow that is very impressive, well done! Is it possible to go on DYK, or is it too late? I can't do any more photos at the moment, very sorry. -- Alex ( Talk) 12:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex, thank you for protecting Al-Sudais, it was very hard for mee to keep it OK. -- Ioannes Pragensis 18:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why you semi-protected Astronomy? — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A user requested it, and it has had lots of vandalism recently. -- Alex ( Talk) 18:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn’t seem like sufficient justification to me. I count only one instance of vandalism in the twenty-four hours prior to your semi-protection, and only two in the five days prior to your locking the article. This level of activity does not merit semi-protection; recent-change patrollers can easily handle this amount of vandalism. A user’s request may draw attention to a problematic article, but by itself cannot be used to justify protection. Please remove it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost every recent IP edit was vandalism, so the answer is no. -- Alex ( Talk) 12:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Rather than lift the protection myself, I have requested feedback. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The level of vandalism was nowhere near high enough to justify protection on that page. -- Steel 20:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais and Neuqua Valley High School for the same reason. -- Steel 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter (November '06 edition) can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. — Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello, 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you quite rightly protected this article to protect it from edit-warring. I am currently trying to negotiate a solution with Clintonesque and Freepsbane. You can see it on my talk page at User talk:Guinnog#Virtual restraining order requested. At the moment I am waiting for Freepsbane to accept; Clintonesque has already done so. Assuming he accepts too, would you mind if I unprotected the article and watched it? Would you, if you agree to this, go for semi-prot or full unprotect? -- Guinnog 02:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine. -- Alex ( Talk) 11:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

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 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, thanks a lot for your support to my RFA. And all the best for your upcoming exams. Hope to see you around soon.. -- Lost ^(talk) 11:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you protected the template {{ Spam0}} as a high-risk template. I created this template, and now that I notice some questionable grammar, I can't fix it! Is there a reason this template is so "high-risk" that it should be fully protected? It should always be substed, it's on my watchlist, so any vandalism (of which I can only find one case in the spam templates) would not likely even make it to any inclusions of the template. I noticed you fully-protected several other warning templates at the same time. I am not an administrator and am frequently working to fight spam, including improving these templates. It would be a great help to me if these were only semi-protected. -- Renesis ( talk) 06:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they seem to be high risk templates. When it is substed any vandalism that might be there will be on the user's talk page until it is manually removed. Since I'm not doing any unprotections or protections much at the moment, I suggest you request any changes at WP:RFPP or request it be unprotected altogether. Thanks. -- Alex ( Talk) 13:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On 9 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Millwall brick, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Allen3  ^talk 16:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the award. I, in turn, awarded Spylab the Wiki Wiffle Bat for his contributions to the article. -- Jreferee 17:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. KP Botany 19:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• 
  The Bright Idea Award
  In view of the numerous issues that have arisen over the Millwall brick article and your outstanding initiative to be the first to bring forth to Wikipedia this important part of human knowledge that would otherwise have remained known only to a few, I hereby award you the Bright Idea Award. -- Jreferee 20:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooh wow thank you! It can go in my nice things page. -- Alex ( Talk) 20:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for voting support in my RfA. However, I have withdrawn due to reasons that a stressed user would withdraw under. I'm sorry I have failed you & your expectations. Thanks, Spawn Man 08:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

YOU MAEY HAV WUN TEH BATTEL BUT TEH WAR IS NOT OVAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.114.25 ( talk • contribs)

Do you think you'd be able to find and arrange such details for every single monarch, from Alfred to the current queen? If so, then I certainly think it's worth exploring. TharkunColl 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the user's talk page. -- Alex ( Talk) 12:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings! Thank you so much, Alex9891, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Hús ö nd 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits on the page Coronation Street about Salverland then send me a template about vandalism I was just adding some imagination to the article. Gee, you are all uptight on theis site. This is why I am working on my own website encyclopedia. On it you will do anything you want and when i buy Wikipedia you wont be able to revert innocent imagination. I will readd Salverland to the article, 75.109.101.139 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)