User talk:AllyUnion/Archive3

Importantstub

Do you know any of the history of Template:Importantstub. There apparently was a TfD that it survived, but there is no copy of the discussion in the archives. I recently looked in on Category:Important stub and found that some newbies had placed the template on some rather dubvious choices, such as JanSport (which probably doesn't even deserve a "needs attention" notice). I can't see the template being of any use at all unless there is a WikiProject or Collaboration of the Week that is going to "own" it, but the most likely choice, Wikipedia:CSB Collaboration of the Week, seems to be moribund. This is another stub, like the Template:pub-stub, that probably should be deleted, but like I suggested before, we should probably gather a whole group of them before we start the TfD process. (I finally found the discussion. It was up for only a week, where the vote was 3-3 and then User:Eloquence deleted everything without anything going into the "official" archives. Before: [1]. and after: [2]) gK ¿? 03:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No sorry, other than the fact I voted on it... I think. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:34, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More TfD and other nonsense

Although I've tried, for the most part, to stay away from some of the more contentious areas of the Wikipedia, such as certain articles, and most of the Votes for Deletion areas, this last week I've nominated one article for deletion Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of male sopranos and one template Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:NPOV-patch. I'm even in the middle of composing a submission for the Evidence section of a Request for arbitration (involving others--not me). Am I becoming a Wikipediaholic? gK ¿? 08:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pu'u O'o

Can you explain what's wrong with the quality featured picture suggestion? Sure, the picture isn't 1024x2048 pixels, but I don't think it needs to be. Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's just not sharp enough. Nor do I find it brilliant or stunning to be a FPC. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

America

Actually, I was trying to disam "America", which at last count, was pointed to by over 300 pages. That's all I was trying to do. I was not trying to vandalize anything. I was actually trying to help Wikipedia. --Woohookitty 18:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UT)

1st time reporting

Ally, I really messed up trying to report User:205.215.134.20, today. You should see what I did to the talk page...newbie at work. oops. Sorry to have created more work in effort to stop this person. Trying to get the {{ down right... Best regards, --allie 23:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VfD: Joshua Claybourn

I think you should reconsider your vote on the Joshua Claybourn entry here: [3]. From from being a blog ad, Claybourn is one of the most notable writers in the Christian community. He's been published in nearly every major Christian magazine and is frequently published in newspapers. He also happens to run a popular weblog. You should change your vote to "Keep"

Note, from anonymous unsigned user: 68.20.131.2 -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He did?

It definitely doesn't look like RK left to me...he didn't blank his talk page, and I see no such message on his user page. Am I missing something? -Frazzydee|✍ 00:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Er... I made a mistake. User:gK left. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chernobyl

As an administrator, before jumping to conclusions I'd suggest you to look into the issue first, even if there is no special policy for this. It my last edit I incorporated the text the anon insisted, namely, the mentioning of "common wormwood". Also, protecting the page without reason is hardly among the policies. Mikkalai 20:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe the blocking policy requires an attempt to talk to the parties suspected in the edit war first. You cannot go and block pages at first requests of anonymous users. Just imagine how quickly the vandals will get an idea how to disrupt the normal work. There have already been vandal's requests for deletion of normal pages. And unfortunately we had to go thru all normal procedure. Fortunately, for the vfd case the only harm was this vfd notice hanging for a week on a good article. Mikkalai 17:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charles Darwin & 3RR

I am aware of the 3RR and please note that I kept to it except for once where I miscalculated by 50 minutes (20 Jan). And even in that case, I had kept to 3RR in what I call a day (9:00 AM to 21:00 PM).

Now since the 21, I have made more than three edits a day, but please examine the edits. You'll find that only two a day were reinsertions of the AL/CD b'day factoid. If you ban someone for violating the 3RR, then you do owe it to that person to examine the actual edits. Vincent 00:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW, if you do choose to remain as mediator, then I'd like to remind you of your responsibilites. You should not take sides, and you should not take for granted that I am wrong. Before taking action, you should read the whole story and review the evidence. For example, do you realize that the factoid was added by someone else four months beforethe war started? Do you realize that there is no similar controversy about having the factoid on the Abraham Lincoln article? I realize that this is a lot of work. If on the other hand you do want to take sides and go with the opposition, then you should unblock the page and let someone else mediate, otherwise, it's willful abuse of admin privileges. Cheers, Vincent 00:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just for information Vincent, I don't think that AllyUnion has stepped in as a mediator in this dispute, nor is taking sides, but just as an admin responding to the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. -- Solipsist 08:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AllyUnion, Thanks for the message on my Talk page. Vincent 09:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just for information Vincent, 3RR is enforced over 24 hours and the word "day" is not mentioned once on Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule. I would recommend you read the policy page to avoid confusion and further blocks. And to avoid further confusion, this is why you were blocked. --Mrfixter 16:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Thank you for your recent comments on the WP:RFPP regarding the protection of a couple of articles. May I ask you to elaborate on your comment, "Besides, if we did let you edit or continue your edit war, one of you, or both of you will likely be blocked for violation of WP:3RR." Do you feel it is appropriate to protect pages as a preemptive strike against possible future violations? Is there a precedent set for such preemptive protective measures, and if so, can you point me to documentation of such precedents? It just seems a little off to me, regardless of how likely future transgressions might seem based on historical record. -Rob

It is at the administrator's discretion within their own powers to act against or to stop violations. Given acknowledgement from two administrators who have seemed to dealt with both articles, both who have seemed to protected them before, I concur on both of their decision. It seems, regardless, both of you seem to have a habit of returning back to the same pattern anyway. I highly doubt that you would want to be banned from editing because of a 3RR violation, due to an edit war caused on now said protected articles. Of course, we can unprotect the articles, and let you try. There is, of course, no rule against preemptive protective measures, however there are rules which justify what seems to be a continuation of an edit war. My statement, slightly inapproprate, was a jest that if we were to allow you to continue editing on those articles, it would be likely you would be reported for a 3RR violation, and subsequently blocked from editing for a 24 hour period. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments both here, and at WP:RFPP. I agree with your assessment that the reverts would continue, even if the 3RR is not specifically violated. User TDC seems unwilling to discuss his vandalism -- he just reverts indefinitely. Your suggestion that a case be made at WP:RFM has merit. Your suggestion that a case be made at WP:RFA as a resolution to this problem must be another jest. -Rob

I did not know whether or not you tried to take your case to WP:RFM. If WP:RFM fails, then you can take it to WP:RFA. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see now that you were referring to "Request for Arbitration" and not "Request for Adminship." The WP:RFA link you provided links to the Request for Adminship page, so I thought you must be joking. You might wish to fix that. Also, I just noticed that your suggestion of mediation doesn't have as much merit as I first thought. From the WP:RFM page:

As mediation seems to be at the crux of this, I'd just like to note that, as a member of the MC and apparently its future Chair (unless someone decides they want the job), we don't have our act together right now and are unlikely to in the next several weeks. While certainly mediation can occur outside of the MC, I think it's fair to say that right now Wikipedia doesn't have a fully functioning formal mediation process, though it certainly should by this time next month. I don't know if that impacts your decision, but thought you'd want to be aware, at least. Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With mediation broken, do you have any other suggestions? Your statement, "A request has been made by the anonymous user to unprotect both of these articles, which I find highly inappropriate" is a bit odd. Exactly what is inappropriate about a user requesting that the protections be lifted from articles that were protected without reason or violation? -Rob

I find it inappropriate because it would seem that you would return to an established pattern. I think there is a request for comment, but other than that, I don't see anything else but arbitration. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't find "established patterns" inappropriate. I have the established pattern of reverting vandalized articles to their previous state, as recommended in the Wikipedia guidelines. It still seems odd to me that you would find the established pattern of following Wiki-guidelines to be inappropriate. Also, please note the responses to your comments at Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation and VVAW talk pages. -Rob

re: VFD Page change

No need to apologize to me. The page-per-day process has been working well in my opinion. We had to update the Wikipedia:Deletion process but I think we were actually able to improve on it. I think it takes a bit less time since the switch. (I should warn you that SimonP disagrees.) Rossami (talk) 14:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Would you be able to remove your current injunction request on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, and move it to one of the talk pages associated with the case? If you shift it there, we'll be able to consider it in the next day or so, and look at whether it is warranted or not. If we have to go through the process of formally merging the request with the current case, it could take a week before we can even begin considering the request. Ambi 14:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Ally, I am hoping you will be prepared to discuss your sudden interest in circumcision related matters. This is not just a coincidence is it? - Robert the Bruce 09:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protection warning

Regarding User:AllyUnion/Protection Warning: not to be hostile, but I'm not sure that it's necessary. To me, having a page listed at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection implies that it's already in need of protection, not that it's being "watched" for a continuing edit war. --Slowking Man 22:03, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

There have been some requests on the page that I feel "not quite there." Protection should be considered under cases where it is really necessary, should it not? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

unprotect request

Please unprotect the Chernobyl. I am withdrawing my defense of the previous version, in view of words of wisdom of an person who spoke with expertise, not just with religious zeal; see the talk page. Mikkalai 23:38, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce injunction request granted

1) For the duration of this arbitration proceeding, Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any account or IP) is prohibited from editing any articles which relate to sex (in particular those relating to foreskin and circumcision). Admins can treat any edit to these articles as a violation of 3RR and act accordingly.

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce. --mav 00:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia grammar project

Hey there, AllyUnion... I'm responding to your request that I join ya in the Wikigrammar project. Sounds interesting, and I imagine it's rather self-explanatory, but, um, what does it entail? Please repond on my talk page. ekedolphin 03:19, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR

Sure, hope I didn't step on any of your edits (thought you were done). Did you want to delete my "leave a message" kludge, which is sort of replaced by that pseudo-template thingy you added? Noel (talk) 08:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I totally understand how it works. I mean, I do understand what the format is that you want to see in reports, and that looks really good. However, I'm not sure how the pseudo-template works to help people stay in that format. E.g. what's to stop people who get confused from simply editing your sample text, and gumming it it? (Although I suppose someone will quickly put it right, if that happens.) Also, the {{SERVER}}{{localurl:ARTICLE|action=history}} stuff may confuse less advanced users - heck, I don't completely understand how localurl works!

See WT:AN#Sections and Subsections. I don't really completely grok it myself; I just ripped it off from User:NickJ/Redirects, and tweaked on it a bit so it sort of did what I want. Still, it's not perfect (it still offers a field for a section header - not sure if that can be suppressed), but I don't know enough about how all that magic stuff works to make it do exactly what I'd like to do. Noel (talk) 09:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bot

The bot has a class 'PageLink', which represents Wikipedia pages. The important methods here are get(), which gets the text of the page and put(), which saves a new version. In general, to have the bot edit a single page, you can use code such as the following:

thispage = wikipedia.PageLink('en','pagetitle')

text = thispage.get()

Some piece of Python code to change text to what you want it to be

thispage.put(text,"intended edit summary")

For further questions, you can reach me at email address andreengelsREMOVETHIS@gmail.com (with the obvious removal) - Andre Engels 09:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh! I'm such an idiot. Declare a PageLink object... duh. Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiGrammar

Hello AllyUnion, I'm responding to your comments on the grammar project on my talk page. It looks like a cool idea and I would definitely be interested in some sort of role. It seems you started this project and I'd be happy to help with setting things up so things run more smoothly (and of course help fix grammar!). I'll be somewhat busy till the weekend but leave me a message on my talk page and hopefully we can get things working. Telso 09:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VFD pages

Thanks for the url hints - I've updated my page accordingly. sjorford:// 10:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)