Alison's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC):
Go back to see caveats or to check another user.
User:Alison
run at Wed Mar 14 08:12:30 2007 GMT
Category talk: 28
Category: 54
Image talk: 18
Image: 95
Mainspace 3677
Portal: 4
Talk: 548
Template talk: 14
Template: 108
User talk: 1528
User: 476
Wikipedia talk: 70
Wikipedia: 474
avg edits per article 2.46
earliest 20:38, 16 February 2004
number of unique pages 2887
total 7094
2004/2 5
2004/3 0
2004/4 0
2004/5 6
2004/6 0
2004/7 3
2004/8 0
2004/9 0
2004/10 4
2004/11 74
2004/12 47
2005/1 24
2005/2 15
2005/3 15
2005/4 90
2005/5 147
2005/6 128
2005/7 224
2005/8 269
2005/9 186
2005/10 92
2005/11 106
2005/12 123
2006/1 75
2006/2 92
2006/3 127
2006/4 389
2006/5 473
2006/6 286
2006/7 56
2006/8 72
2006/9 177
2006/10 258
2006/11 234
2006/12 925
2007/1 740
2007/2 731
2007/3 901
Mainspace
88 Transsexualism
69 Ireland
49 Scanger
43 Tuberculosis
34 Steve Stanton
34 Penis removal
30 Shemale
29 Saint Patrick
28 Plastic surgery
28 Patrick Augustine Sheehan
26 Charles Haughey
26 Buttevant
25 Fermoy
25 Plastic Paddy
24 Michael Cusack
Talk:
30 Transsexualism
17 Strabane
17 Cork (city)
16 Plastic Paddy
14 Scanger
13 Ireland
10 Steve Stanton
8 Irish-Scots
7 Shemale
7 Toby Meltzer
7 Buttevant
6 Saint Patrick
6 Pre-Code
6 Éamon de Valera
5 Burning Man
Category talk:
2 Health in Belgium
2 Hospitals in Belgium
2 Healthcare in Belgium
Category:
4 User fth-2
3 Food companies of Ireland
2 Hospitals in Belgium
2 Belgian surgeons
2 Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Limerick
2 Healthcare in Belgium
2 Pages needing expert attention from Pharmacology experts
2 WikiProject Pharmacology members
2 Wikipedians by alma mater: National University of Ireland, Galway
2 County Wicklow
2 Translation Request/ga
2 Wikipedians by alma mater: Institute of Technology, Carlow
2 User ga-3
Image:
4 Arm IPL.jpg
4 Juggler.jpg
4 Neonman2.jpg
3 Senatornorris.jpg
3 Gb ken.jpg
3 Raising cross.jpg
3 Muirchu.jpg
3 Steve Stanton.jpg
3 Johnireland.jpg
3 RnaG.gif
3 Pookie.jpg
3 Sylvesters well.jpg
2 RTE1.gif
2 Ken Musgrave.jpg
2 ArtsCouncilIreland.gif
Image talk:
2 Naval Jack of Ireland.svg
2 Bitchstar.JPG
2 AllisonFisher.jpg
2 Jeanie Johnston i.jpg
Template:
9 WikiProject Irish Maritime
6 Irish maritime-stub
6 Sex hormones
6 Electricity generation in Ireland
5 User WikiProject Pharmacology
5 User ga-3
4 User WPMed
3 User en-Ire-N
3 User WPBelgium
3 User wikiga
3 User WPIrish Maritime
3 Garda Síochána
2 IrishNavyFleet
2 User Kansas City
2 WikiPortal Ireland
Template talk:
3 Celtic mythology
3 Userpage
2 CUSD
User:
177 Alison
35 Alison/Userboxes
33 Alison/Images
31 Alison/sandbox
28 Alison/to do
14 Alison/Status
9 ClemMcGann/maritime
7 Alison/Articles
7 Anyaanomaly
6 Alison/Awards
5 Alison/Bar
5 Alison/todobox
5 Alison/monobook.js
5 Acalamari/Been semi-protected
5 Alison/Userboxes/User WikiChix
User talk:
283 Alison
50 Demiurge
15 85.43.58.100
14 Fvasconcellos
13 Kathryn NicDhàna
12 Ryanpostlethwaite
12 Alison/Archive 1
11 DianePa
11 Abtract
10 Djegan
10 Fergananim
9 Anyaanomaly
8 81.158.182.196
7 Jkelly
7 Acalamari
Wikipedia:
70 Requests for comment/User names
52 Irish Wikipedians' notice board
38 Administrator intervention against vandalism
27 Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite
23 Irish Wikipedians' notice board/to do
18 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
16 Requests for page protection
15 WikiProject Irish Maritime
10 Editor review/Alison
8 Articles for deletion/Toby Meltzer
8 WikiProject Irish Maritime/to do
7 Articles for deletion/Brian Reddy
7 Changing username/Usurpations
6 Requests for adminship/Seraphimblade 2
5 Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com
Wikipedia talk:
19 Irish Wikipedians' notice board
7 WikiProject Irish Maritime
6 WikiProject Pharmacology
6 Changing username/Usurpations
5 WikiProject Drugs
4 WikiProject LGBT studies
4 Administrator intervention against vandalism
4 Requests for comment/User names
4 Username policy
3 Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite
3 WikiProject Ireland
3 Signatures
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]
Strangely, i've opposed and my opposition was removed. Can someone please expain?
J O R D A N [
talk ]
12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- You opposed before the Rfa had started so it was removed, she must have accepted the nom before anyone can comment Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- What Ryan said. Here's where an admin deleted it. I'd put it back in myself but daren't as that would not be appropriate :) Suggest you go ahead and try again now since it's up and running. - Alison ☺ 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've decided to
be bold and re-added
J O R D A N's oppose vote. Will also note this on the user's talk page. --
MarcoTolo
00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- They should also be asked why they oppose. Ryan and I are questioning the user's decision. It's not because we're biased; it's because we're not sure about the answer this user gave.
Acalamari
02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure there was a need for both noms to ask the same question- which looks a bit like ganging up. Ryan asked the question perfectly clearly, I don't think it needed a seconder... WjB scribe 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with WJB. Opposers don't have to explain themselves anymore than supporters do. Of course, it helps the candidate look for potential areas to improve if opposers explain their rationale but they don't have to and shouldn't be interrogated about it.
Sarah
10:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with sarah and WJB, I simply asked the question because I felt it was a misunderstanding, would people think it more appropriate to remove it? Everyone is entitled to there opinion whether others agree or not
Ryanpostlethwaite
contribs/
talk
10:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it was fine to ask the person once and I don't think you should remove your question. Acalamari said above "They should also be asked why they oppose," which is what concerned me...you and he had already asked the question and I didn't think it was necessary or appropriate to continue asking them to clarify their position or to encourage other people to do so. Once was fine, but more than that and it starts to look like ganging up and interrogation, IMO. Cheers,
Sarah
11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed it now after reviewing this discussion. Acalamari 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it was fine to ask the person once and I don't think you should remove your question. Acalamari said above "They should also be asked why they oppose," which is what concerned me...you and he had already asked the question and I didn't think it was necessary or appropriate to continue asking them to clarify their position or to encourage other people to do so. Once was fine, but more than that and it starts to look like ganging up and interrogation, IMO. Cheers,
Sarah
11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with sarah and WJB, I simply asked the question because I felt it was a misunderstanding, would people think it more appropriate to remove it? Everyone is entitled to there opinion whether others agree or not
Ryanpostlethwaite
contribs/
talk
10:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- User:JCraw has now clarified his position on my talk page here. Mystery solved. Apparently, he had misinterpreted the RFA as something else - Alison ☺ 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- They should also be asked why they oppose. Ryan and I are questioning the user's decision. It's not because we're biased; it's because we're not sure about the answer this user gave.
Acalamari
02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've decided to
be bold and re-added
J O R D A N's oppose vote. Will also note this on the user's talk page. --
MarcoTolo
00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. Unfortunately, User:Manopingo (now closed) informs me that he's the anon that made the somewhat negative comment which I replied to in the RFA [1] [2]. In light of the fact that the guy's been trolling my RFA under two names, that his 'manopingo' account is now closed and that I have now just become aware of it, I request that his support vote be reviewed in the interests of fairness and lack of ambiguity. Transparency, folks - Alison ☺ 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Alison's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC):
Go back to see caveats or to check another user.
User:Alison
run at Wed Mar 14 08:12:30 2007 GMT
Category talk: 28
Category: 54
Image talk: 18
Image: 95
Mainspace 3677
Portal: 4
Talk: 548
Template talk: 14
Template: 108
User talk: 1528
User: 476
Wikipedia talk: 70
Wikipedia: 474
avg edits per article 2.46
earliest 20:38, 16 February 2004
number of unique pages 2887
total 7094
2004/2 5
2004/3 0
2004/4 0
2004/5 6
2004/6 0
2004/7 3
2004/8 0
2004/9 0
2004/10 4
2004/11 74
2004/12 47
2005/1 24
2005/2 15
2005/3 15
2005/4 90
2005/5 147
2005/6 128
2005/7 224
2005/8 269
2005/9 186
2005/10 92
2005/11 106
2005/12 123
2006/1 75
2006/2 92
2006/3 127
2006/4 389
2006/5 473
2006/6 286
2006/7 56
2006/8 72
2006/9 177
2006/10 258
2006/11 234
2006/12 925
2007/1 740
2007/2 731
2007/3 901
Mainspace
88 Transsexualism
69 Ireland
49 Scanger
43 Tuberculosis
34 Steve Stanton
34 Penis removal
30 Shemale
29 Saint Patrick
28 Plastic surgery
28 Patrick Augustine Sheehan
26 Charles Haughey
26 Buttevant
25 Fermoy
25 Plastic Paddy
24 Michael Cusack
Talk:
30 Transsexualism
17 Strabane
17 Cork (city)
16 Plastic Paddy
14 Scanger
13 Ireland
10 Steve Stanton
8 Irish-Scots
7 Shemale
7 Toby Meltzer
7 Buttevant
6 Saint Patrick
6 Pre-Code
6 Éamon de Valera
5 Burning Man
Category talk:
2 Health in Belgium
2 Hospitals in Belgium
2 Healthcare in Belgium
Category:
4 User fth-2
3 Food companies of Ireland
2 Hospitals in Belgium
2 Belgian surgeons
2 Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Limerick
2 Healthcare in Belgium
2 Pages needing expert attention from Pharmacology experts
2 WikiProject Pharmacology members
2 Wikipedians by alma mater: National University of Ireland, Galway
2 County Wicklow
2 Translation Request/ga
2 Wikipedians by alma mater: Institute of Technology, Carlow
2 User ga-3
Image:
4 Arm IPL.jpg
4 Juggler.jpg
4 Neonman2.jpg
3 Senatornorris.jpg
3 Gb ken.jpg
3 Raising cross.jpg
3 Muirchu.jpg
3 Steve Stanton.jpg
3 Johnireland.jpg
3 RnaG.gif
3 Pookie.jpg
3 Sylvesters well.jpg
2 RTE1.gif
2 Ken Musgrave.jpg
2 ArtsCouncilIreland.gif
Image talk:
2 Naval Jack of Ireland.svg
2 Bitchstar.JPG
2 AllisonFisher.jpg
2 Jeanie Johnston i.jpg
Template:
9 WikiProject Irish Maritime
6 Irish maritime-stub
6 Sex hormones
6 Electricity generation in Ireland
5 User WikiProject Pharmacology
5 User ga-3
4 User WPMed
3 User en-Ire-N
3 User WPBelgium
3 User wikiga
3 User WPIrish Maritime
3 Garda Síochána
2 IrishNavyFleet
2 User Kansas City
2 WikiPortal Ireland
Template talk:
3 Celtic mythology
3 Userpage
2 CUSD
User:
177 Alison
35 Alison/Userboxes
33 Alison/Images
31 Alison/sandbox
28 Alison/to do
14 Alison/Status
9 ClemMcGann/maritime
7 Alison/Articles
7 Anyaanomaly
6 Alison/Awards
5 Alison/Bar
5 Alison/todobox
5 Alison/monobook.js
5 Acalamari/Been semi-protected
5 Alison/Userboxes/User WikiChix
User talk:
283 Alison
50 Demiurge
15 85.43.58.100
14 Fvasconcellos
13 Kathryn NicDhàna
12 Ryanpostlethwaite
12 Alison/Archive 1
11 DianePa
11 Abtract
10 Djegan
10 Fergananim
9 Anyaanomaly
8 81.158.182.196
7 Jkelly
7 Acalamari
Wikipedia:
70 Requests for comment/User names
52 Irish Wikipedians' notice board
38 Administrator intervention against vandalism
27 Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite
23 Irish Wikipedians' notice board/to do
18 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
16 Requests for page protection
15 WikiProject Irish Maritime
10 Editor review/Alison
8 Articles for deletion/Toby Meltzer
8 WikiProject Irish Maritime/to do
7 Articles for deletion/Brian Reddy
7 Changing username/Usurpations
6 Requests for adminship/Seraphimblade 2
5 Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com
Wikipedia talk:
19 Irish Wikipedians' notice board
7 WikiProject Irish Maritime
6 WikiProject Pharmacology
6 Changing username/Usurpations
5 WikiProject Drugs
4 WikiProject LGBT studies
4 Administrator intervention against vandalism
4 Requests for comment/User names
4 Username policy
3 Requests for adminship/Ryanpostlethwaite
3 WikiProject Ireland
3 Signatures
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]
Strangely, i've opposed and my opposition was removed. Can someone please expain?
J O R D A N [
talk ]
12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- You opposed before the Rfa had started so it was removed, she must have accepted the nom before anyone can comment Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/ talk 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- What Ryan said. Here's where an admin deleted it. I'd put it back in myself but daren't as that would not be appropriate :) Suggest you go ahead and try again now since it's up and running. - Alison ☺ 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've decided to
be bold and re-added
J O R D A N's oppose vote. Will also note this on the user's talk page. --
MarcoTolo
00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- They should also be asked why they oppose. Ryan and I are questioning the user's decision. It's not because we're biased; it's because we're not sure about the answer this user gave.
Acalamari
02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure there was a need for both noms to ask the same question- which looks a bit like ganging up. Ryan asked the question perfectly clearly, I don't think it needed a seconder... WjB scribe 05:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with WJB. Opposers don't have to explain themselves anymore than supporters do. Of course, it helps the candidate look for potential areas to improve if opposers explain their rationale but they don't have to and shouldn't be interrogated about it.
Sarah
10:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with sarah and WJB, I simply asked the question because I felt it was a misunderstanding, would people think it more appropriate to remove it? Everyone is entitled to there opinion whether others agree or not
Ryanpostlethwaite
contribs/
talk
10:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it was fine to ask the person once and I don't think you should remove your question. Acalamari said above "They should also be asked why they oppose," which is what concerned me...you and he had already asked the question and I didn't think it was necessary or appropriate to continue asking them to clarify their position or to encourage other people to do so. Once was fine, but more than that and it starts to look like ganging up and interrogation, IMO. Cheers,
Sarah
11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed it now after reviewing this discussion. Acalamari 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it was fine to ask the person once and I don't think you should remove your question. Acalamari said above "They should also be asked why they oppose," which is what concerned me...you and he had already asked the question and I didn't think it was necessary or appropriate to continue asking them to clarify their position or to encourage other people to do so. Once was fine, but more than that and it starts to look like ganging up and interrogation, IMO. Cheers,
Sarah
11:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with sarah and WJB, I simply asked the question because I felt it was a misunderstanding, would people think it more appropriate to remove it? Everyone is entitled to there opinion whether others agree or not
Ryanpostlethwaite
contribs/
talk
10:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- User:JCraw has now clarified his position on my talk page here. Mystery solved. Apparently, he had misinterpreted the RFA as something else - Alison ☺ 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- They should also be asked why they oppose. Ryan and I are questioning the user's decision. It's not because we're biased; it's because we're not sure about the answer this user gave.
Acalamari
02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've decided to
be bold and re-added
J O R D A N's oppose vote. Will also note this on the user's talk page. --
MarcoTolo
00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. Unfortunately, User:Manopingo (now closed) informs me that he's the anon that made the somewhat negative comment which I replied to in the RFA [1] [2]. In light of the fact that the guy's been trolling my RFA under two names, that his 'manopingo' account is now closed and that I have now just become aware of it, I request that his support vote be reviewed in the interests of fairness and lack of ambiguity. Transparency, folks - Alison ☺ 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)