User talk:Wiki alf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Navigation
Main Home Admin Babel Awards Recommended Tools Tools Sandbox one Sandbox two Welcome message Edit counter Sister project accounts Commons talk page Meta talk page Art by ALKIVAR™ HTML ALF ASCII ALF

Contents 1 Hotep Hotel 2 Hi-de-ho there neighbor! 3 AfD close on Starslip Crisis 4 Deletion review advice 5 Infobox 6 Congrats! 7 Barnstar 8 General Tojo 9 Elaine Clark redirect 10 Nomination 11 Thanks for the Welcome 12 Muchas Gracias for "Tubby Wubby" Assistance! 13 Hello 14 Pallywood 15 A new page I created 16 User page 17 Vandalism by 64.61.24.130 18 Another vandal... 19 re: Welcome 20 Official note of gratitude 21 Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day! 22 Reincarnations 23 I'm Back 24 Lazy sunday afternoon 25 Need your help 26 EL? 27 Templar pages 28 Just because I love you... 29 you silly bilend 30 Need your help....again 31 My school's blocked situation 32 revisions to "Guinness World Records : Reliability questions" 33 oitc 34 196.207.47.60 problem 35 Hah!, I went 2 whole days without bugging you.....but 36 WikiProject University of Oxford 37 Heavy 38 Not to be a pest but...

[edit] Hotep Hotel

According to this, your talk page is the only page which links to the Great Western Records redirect page now. Or is that a cache problem, because I can't find an instance of it on here which hasn't been turned into a :normal link. Bubba hotep 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup not there, assume cache problem and that the wiki will catch up eventually.--Alf ^melmac 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "The Chase is Better Than the Cache", you know. Ahem. Bubba hotep 16:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Alf just groans, but with a wry smile of appreciation for the extreme pun.

Hotep reckons Alf was humming the riff and whistling the beginning of the guitar solo, while playing a pretend hi-hat with the aid of a pencil and a tea-tray, rather than just the groan and smile he admits to!

Of course, it would help if (after I went to all the trouble of working out all the necessary disambiguations on the GS album titles in advance) I went and put a dablink on the other articles, wouldn't it?! D'oh! Btw, St. Valentine's Day massacre doesn't have a dablink. Shall I fix it? Bubba hotep 09:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see that it wouldn't be helpful to the odd visitor who was only going for that title.--Alf ^melmac 09:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. And there is only 2 more d until OC is on the MP! – Bubba hotep 14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed and I'll be chained to the desk watching the diffs drift by :) - with luck it'll be quiet enough to enjoy the show.--Alf ^melmac 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a Saturday, so all the kids will either be in bed or causing trouble at the local shops instead of slipping poop into the article! Bubba hotep 14:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

From someone via AOL messenger: "its thestatue from wikioedia i tried to correct info on arthur" - oh dear. Bubba hotep 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, did you get a knighthood out of it? Should I now address you as Sir Bubba of the Angelic Horde?--Alf ^melmac 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To be truthful, I didn't engage in conversation because I didn't notice it until I was signing off! Somewhat of a late night that night. :) Bubba hotep 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I know WP is not a paper encyclopedia, but I'm printing the MH article out to have a scan through at my Sunday leisure! :) Bubba hotep 11:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well your first mission, if you should choose to accept it, is to replace the section title that has been given a name that has a sell by date, I think you know which one.--Alf ^melmac 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This talk page will auto-destruct in five seconds... 4.... 3.... 2....

Recent events? How about "== The Terminal Show ==" or "== In the Year of the Wolf =="? I'm not really here by the way.... Bubba hotep 15:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice. :) Bubba hotep 12:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The compilation and lives are next to do, then bring in the lineup changes, then I can prune the slightly too wide box on the main article and it should fit the other browsers better :) --Alf ^melmac 12:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get some stuff down for this today because I won't be around until very late tonight, and even then only for a short while! The hits came up easier when you type in "Motorhead + [insert possible criticism here]", but even then it's not all bad. Bubba hotep 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Np, you do as you need. Yes even the ones that look bad are good :)--Alf ^melmac 14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You should have let me know this needed doing. I would have done it! ;) By the way, it's March today. M A R C H. I know you probably haven't had a problem with it today, but I have! So I thought if I wrote it somewhere, it would stick! Bubba hotep 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

um OK, it's march notes it down using a yellow crayon, which he then consumes if you'd like to give the EPs the same treatment I'd be relieved I won't have to wrack my brains for it. Not sure that Videography section can be made to look interesting though.--Alf ^melmac 13:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh bugger. I was supposed to give it the "you should have let me know" treatment when you'd completely finished. It's looks more complicated than editing a citeweb template in-situ! However, consider it done, Captain! Bubba hotep 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As there's only five, I'd use a single column like in the albums, lives and compilations sections. Just linking Bronze in singles and I'm done then ;) --Alf ^melmac 13:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, yes only five. :P Bubba hotep 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oo-er, what happened here? I used the talk messages button to insert the nothanks-sd template and it put the template in the header as well as the message body! Confused me a bit, and then I ended up editing the template by mistake! Oopsy daisy!. (Fixed the template again though. Any problems your end? Bubba hotep 12:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - you put {{subst:nothanks-sd|pg=foo|url=example.com}}-- ~~~~ there and ended up editing the template o_O !! Not a clue.--Alf ^melmac 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, can't seem to replicate it either on my test talk page. Kerfuddle may be the word! Oh well. :) Bubba hotep 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gggr. What is going on?! Think we need to start sorting this out once and for all! Tomorrow... coz I'm leaving here for now! Bubba hotep 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow's good, see you there :) --Alf ^melmac 22:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this time it might not be so sinister. I believe they may be following this convention of not preemptively disambiguating: "Title (X song)" when "Title (song)" doesn't exist in the first place. However, two flaws with this: 1) They haven't taken into account that, considering that song has been covered many times, there may be a day when "Title (Y song)" and even "Title (Z song)" may exist; 2) the root title is a song as well, so calling one song "Title" and the other song "Title (song)" is hardly a disambiguation. Anyway, still checking my watchlist after my early retirement last night! Bubba hotep 08:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked the rest of my watchlist. Sheesh. O_O Bubba hotep 08:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All fixed! (see sandbox talk) Bubba hotep 09:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not even close! -- Bubba hotep 10:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All done! You can come out now! Bubba hotep 11:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Crivens I only noticed the one thing at the time (and yes I have only just dragged my carcass out of bed if you were wondering) I didn't notice all the others, we do definitely need to nail down what the consensus on songs and singles is.--Alf ^melmac 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this was driven by faulty logic rather than project "policy", but yes. Needs doing. That's two hours of admin-time I won't see again (and it's hot out there!). There is still one to take care of, as I remember. N'est pas? Oh, and still see the sandbox for what I did and doublecheck it! :) Bubba hotep 13:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think the user is working happily away with little awareness of the in and outs on all levels, hopefully will take time read the advice you left.--Alf ^melmac 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ace. 0mm Bubba hotep 13:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A small (and temporary?) concession to help define the bar on this. I also think that a lot of the discussion is only taking into account writers' points of views and not readers, who are unlikely to bother to find the right page to add discussion when they find themselves in the middle of mush whilst scooting up and down the releases of the band they were interested in.--Alf ^melmac 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well... true, but if I was looking for that song instead of the other song, I would go to both songs and think that song is missing because it is way down the bottom, and maybe I didn't think to scroll down? Maybe others' views that everything should be crammed onto one page as if Wikipedia is short of server space is not the viewer's view. I don't know. :) Bubba hotep 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you say "paper" - oh lol.--Alf ^melmac 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Did anything I said above make sense, because I've just read it back and am having trouble with it! :D Bubba hotep 15:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a pint of what you had then, I make good sense of it and you're right.--Alf ^melmac 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it does. Thank you. It was the that, this, and both which were confusing. And I think I was alluding to WP:NOT#Paper somewhere in there as well, as you may have gathered. :) Bubba hotep 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and did I mention BURO – which is nearly "donkey" in Spanish. :) Bubba hotep 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi-de-ho there neighbor!

I just dropped by to award you this spork, as I realized with horror that my name does not appear once on User:Wiki alf/Awards, and that is a tragedy. I tried to find a woon, but we don't seem to have any photos of them on Commons... ;) In all seriousness, a much belated "Keep up the good work." from me, and a thousand apologies it didn't make it's way here a year ago. Essjay (Talk) 12:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Alf hurriedly pockets the spork before anyone else spots it and begins looking up "effective spork handling strategies"

Thanks Essjay, I will treasure and use it wisely.--Alf ^melmac 13:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For effective spork handling strategies, I suggest random, unprovoked stabbing of people with it while reciting passages from Douglas Adams; I find that stabbing from the lower left works well, and I'm particularly fond of Vogon poetry while doing so, it increases the effect. You may want to go in for the automatic spork washer, though, as all that stabbing tends to leave it kinda dirty (also, I like to use mine to eat those neat cheesy fiesta potatoes from Taco Bell...) Essjay (Talk) 13:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh freddled gruntbuggly,/ Thy micturations are to me/ As plurdled gabbleblotchits/ On a lurgid bee./ Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes/ And hooptiously drangle me/ With crinkly bindlewurdles,/ Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,/ See if I don't! – as good a way as any to start a Monday morning. :) Bubba hotep 09:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alf removes the spork from the automatic spork washer and wonders if it's time to 'get random'

Uh oh how could I miss this? My little Alfie has been given a spork???!!! Wow congrats, you are now officially a man-child alien! KOS | talk 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Alf wonders if this new era entitles him to 'play' with KOS' car or at the least, hold a party for 'a few' friends at the ol' KOS-place.

Of course, of course my home is your home son!! just bring the spiced rumKOS | talk 08:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

wooohoooo!!--Alf ^melmac 11:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD close on Starslip Crisis

Could you please provide a rationale for your closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starslip Crisis (2nd nomination)? Thanks. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As per all my closures, after reading though each and every contribution more than once, noting the the changes that had been made to the article in the interim, I weighed the value of the arguments against the various policies that they referred to, a keep would have been against the weight of arguments for those wishing deleting due to verifiability and reliable source issues, an outright delete would have negated the weight of arguments that primary sources be may used for data inclusion, a redirect leaves the option for that on the article to which it is redirected.--Alf ^melmac 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As a redirect, which is, after all, a deletion of the article itself although not the removal of its content from the availability of Wikipedia editors, was also clearly against the weight of the arguments of the majority of experienced Wikipedia editors (who argued to keep), I feel strongly that the appropriate closure in the interpretation you describe above would have been no consensus, leaving the article in place for the next round(s) of AFDs if necessary until such time as a consensus was built to either keep or delete. Accordingly, so that this may be further reviewed: An editor has asked for a deletion review of Starslip Crisis. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Balancer 16:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The weight of argument is not about numbers. I fully agree that a number of respected editors were involved in the AfD - in circular discussions. I can't see any reason to give a no consensus when the weight of argument against argument viewed against policy is stronger on one side than the other, but your view obviously differs. The matter ends here for me, I'm not interested in participating in DR, particularly when tagged as a "text book case". Thanks--Alf ^melmac 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is defined by agreement, not by an arbitrarily and subjectively determined "strength of argument." Wikipedia:Deletion policy still invoked rough consensus the last time I checked it, which cannot be said to be present, even discarding the arguments that did not refer in an appropriate manner to policy. I personally and strongly urge you to consider consensus carefully, as I believe that Wikipedia's doom is spelled out in any decision to remove Wikipedia:Consensus as one of the operating principles of Wikipedia. Balancer 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We could both quote parts of policy like "deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing" until the cows come home. As I said above the matter is closed for me, I note your view, and your comments.--Alf ^melmac 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would find it hard to argue policy with anybody who takes an AfD decision to DRV when the article wasn't, in fact, deleted. I thought that DRV stood for "Deletion review"? Bubba hotep 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as the DRV itself has just recognised.--Alf ^melmac 20:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I misunderstood precisely what is meant by closing as a redirect without protecting. Now that GRBerry has explained in closing the DRV I threw up, I find I owe you a most sincere apology on attacking the results of your decision. Balancer 04:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted - your penance is to add 500kb of highly interesting, referenced, new material to the wiki by 5pm today ;) --Alf ^melmac 09:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review advice

Hi Alf, Hope you don't mind me bothering you - but you welcomed me and said to ask anything :-)

I need some advice regarding a deletion review. I reinstated an article Drawball after searching for the reason and finding an AFD with "no consensus" and some other comments that didn't really seem to support deletion. The article was speedied straight away and Seraphimblade filled me in on the correct procedure - i.e. listing it in the deletion review which I have done here. It turns out there was a second nomination that I hadn't picked up that was an overwhelming "Delete". The original debate closer, and article deleter have both had a say in the review, and as one might expect support their original position to delete the article.

Question one is this. Is it a breach of good manners, or policy, or whatever for me to contact a couple of the original supporters of the article and invite them to participate in the review? At first this seemed fair as they have not been notified whereas the afd closer & deleter have been. But then if I do that it seems unfair to the other people who contributed to the AFG in support of deleting it. Also this is not just a count of votes is it? So if 100 people chip in and say "this is a good article, we want it back" does that really count for anything if they can't provide reasons that meet the policy? Sorry this is getting metaphysical. I guess I am asking your general advice on this situation.

Question two: Seraphimblade has explained that the real problem for the article is good secondary sources. My question is that, if I think I can make an argument that some articles are worth having even if they don't meet this guideline, where would I make it? How does one attempt to change a Wikipedia policy?

Thanks, AntiVan 04:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A1: Ouch this is a tough one. If it's just a couple of users, no it's not a breach of good manners, nor a breach of policy (as far as I know, unless there's something I haven't noticed). However, as a wiki-n00b I did spamm a few people's talk pages about an issue and although I wasn't taken to task about it, in retrospect, I shouldn't have gone about it that way and regret having done it. The second half of that question is even trickier - 100 people making the WP:ILIKEIT would/should have no effect on many admins who might have chosen to close any discussion - it's one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

Q2: Slightly easier but not what you 'd like to hear - nothing - absolutely nothing trumps verifiability,† it's one of the three core content policies - No original research and Neutral point of view being the other two. I can't think of anywhere it's a good idea to suggest that data be included which would involve this.

That said, I can see that Paintball is a pretty neat thing - how I would approach the issue is to be looking for the article which describes and gives examples of this sort of phenomenon and include the verfiable and reported information there. I found two good write ups on the net, I wouldn't be surprised if there is also printed material. Lastly , there is no hurry, it may 'explode' (like Star Wars kid did) and that of course would change the issue entirely.--Alf ^melmac 09:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

† excepting non-policy based actions such as fiat by Jimbo, Office actions and the like.

Thanks for that. I guess I do have a problem still since I feel that some articles (such as Drawball, Melmac (planet), and probably thousands of others) are worth having, even without verifiable sources. I can see how having non-blog secondary sources serves controversial articles well, but can't help feeling this rule eliminates a lot of articles that would serve Wikipedia well - even if it came as the cost of making administration a little harder.

I am thinking there must be some area where the philosophy of these rules is discussed and a consensus reached, so I would like to take my (admittedly futile) argument there. Is there a forum to air such views in a constructive way, or am I to become one of those slightly mad wikipedians with non-policy philosophies on their user pages? (This is not a dig at the deletionists - their philosophies of Wikipedia are backed by policy). If you know of such a place, then I could take my POV there instead of bugging you with it.

Thanks, AntiVan 04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey! You saying that Topps Baseball cards and ALFtv not verifiable sources :p ? Wikipedia:IRC channels is probably you best bet for talking it out.--Alf ^melmac 06:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Haha - brilliant!!! Cheers --PopUpPirate 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No no - thank you, it was fun.--Alf ^melmac 14:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Yeah to your article on the front page. :) Good job. pschemp | talk 04:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Naawww, it's getting vandalised as I type, I get that warm wiki-moment :D --Alf ^melmac 06:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I've seen your name popping up next to Motörhead on my watchlist on frequent occasions and can't help but notice the great work you've been doing there. Well done, I hope you can bring it up to GA and perhaps even FA one day. Good job! ĤĶ51→Łalk 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you, well lets hope we can get it up to FA, that'd be real nice. Now the history is done we can start looking at the weaker areas.--Alf ^melmac 17:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you can, I'll help you wherever I can. Something to note, the lineup box in the article might be better suited to having an article of it own. For ideas, see these articles: AC/DC lineups, List of Black Sabbath band members and List of Iron Maiden band members. Good luck! ĤĶ51→^Łalk 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The AC/DC one looks pretty neat, I wonder if we could get that many photos of the line-up :s Still I'll certainly keep that in mind.--Alf ^melmac 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Tojo

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo for a history on that guy, a combination of grandiose delusion combined with a large dose of incivility. Thanks for reverting, please block on sight. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

'K thanks.--Alf ^melmac 20:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elaine Clark redirect

The link you provided on the talk page obviously refers to a different Elaine Clark than the article, as it says that Elaine died at a young age. The original article, at least, referred to a woman with a developmentally disabled son. I tried googling "Elaine Clark" and gave up, since the name is far too common. Natalie 21:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the content was a skewed version of the data that would be in the Elaine Clark article if it hadn't been garbled, this made me think so. As it was only her name used, a redirect would have been appropriate and I was just looking over it to see if it met the bar for making a stub there, but hey ho :) --Alf ^melmac 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. The redirect page ended up being deleted anyway, since it was a redirect to an empty page. I have a suspicion that it was intended to be an attack page. Natalie 00:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I had more than a suspicion, too, and blanked it per WP:BLP until I could investigate further. Bubba hotep 00:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That aspect passed through my mind also. No worries anyway, if the Center is worth it someone will create it one day, there's no rush after all :) --Alf ^melmac 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

I humbly accept! I will do the necessary on the RfA page and let you know when it is done. Thank you. Bubba hotep 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been busying away with the from, but I won't formally accept it with my "signature" until it is ready to transclude (and Kreider) has had chance to input! OK? Bubba hotep 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine looks at watch nervously It's nearly his usual activity time isn't it.--Alf ^melmac 23:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Kreider has put his nom out there! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for your kind words, Mr K! Bubba hotep 23:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we're all shouts ready to Rock and roll stops shouting and goes and gets a drink  :) --Alf ^melmac 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mine's a humble cup of tea tonight. Hopefully, I won't end up bringing the network down asking the computer to make it for me! Bubba hotep 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's it from me tonight. I will try and get on as much as possible tomorrow (today!) in case there are any optional questions to answer. Bubba hotep 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, another early morning for me.--Alf ^melmac 01:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for the welcome. You can probably tell from my edit history that I am not a rookie. I have been a logged user before but do not desire to be one again. Hitting the recent changes link and reverting vandalism doesn't really require a user account. I have no ambition for "Wiki-Gain". I just like picking off vandals and jerks. We have a thousand computers here at the library where I work. Tomorrow I will sit at a different one and my IP will be different. But my edits will have just as much quality and you may end up welcoming me again. And I will be just as grateful when you do. Have a nice day! 156.34.217.119 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh how the data-rich live! :) Here's until the next time then.--Alf ^melmac 07:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muchas Gracias for "Tubby Wubby" Assistance!

Thanks for the help with the vandalism and reposting associated with Mr Tubby Wubby. Cheers! Mec modifier ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem.--Alf ^melmac 08:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I internal error-ed with you while trying to salt the page - did I do something wrong? *nervous* :) – riana_dzasta 08:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, all seems fine to me. Looks salted, tastes salted :)--Alf ^melmac 08:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good-o :) – riana_dzasta 08:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

How are you doing?. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Alf lifts the hood and and pours in some 4star Oh maybe you would have preferred tea? I'm dandy thanks.--Alf ^melmac 10:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pallywood

Following the recent AfD discussion on Pallywood, I've made some changes to the article to address your concerns about original research and neologisms. Please feel free to comment at Talk:Pallywood. -- ChrisO 11:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see it was kept - rats :p Thanks for your work on it though, Chris. --Alf ^melmac 11:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new page I created

Alf You welcomed me to the site some time ago and I'm only an occasional editor so I don't know much about approaching the whole community to ask questions, so I thought I'd come back to ask you a query. I've just started a page for College Girls, the documentary series about St Hilda's College, Oxford. My query is that previous new articles I've started have all been short stub articles, whereas I did some online research and wrote a lot in this one straightaway: so is it long enough to not need stub tags (apart from the one separate section I've tagged)? I didn't want to assume I'd taken it past that stage in a single edit. I also thought I'd ask you since I noticed your name on an Oxford University page history and you come from Oxfordshire, so maybe you have some passing knowledge of the subject area and may have a comment on what I wrote...Thanks in advance Jimbow25 23:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jimbow, thanks for 'calling back'. While there's no harm in keeping it tagged as a stub to encourage other editors to add to it, I would say it isn't: using the second way of telling if it's a stub - is it "so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library"? After a superficial search I could not find anything of relevance to the article that hasn't already been included, there was a passing mention in a BBC site mentioning it in passing when discussing Brookside ratings, which would be difficult to find a way of including, and is of insignificant interest to readers of the article anyway. So it would now "be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research". In my opinion it's not a stub, but as I first said, no harm in leaving if you wish or more editors to be encouraged to add to it.--Alf ^melmac 23:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As ever, my pleasure :) --Alf ^melmac 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by 64.61.24.130

Hi. I noticed that you gave a final warning to user 64.61.24.130 for vandalism; the user has vandalized several articles since that warning, including many demographic changes to an article about a town in NY that have not yet been reverted; can you please block 64.61.24.130, or tell me how I can report the user elsewhere? Thanks! --Info999 21:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that warning is nearly a month old and it may well be a different user, I'm not at all sure about the uncommented changes to numbers and have reverted them. Am asking for edit summaries when changing data, may not realise the source and is taking something from a local database, the figures don't look outrageous. I'll check for later edits.--Alf ^melmac 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, most of the edits from before and after the warning are not only concerning the same articles, but are all related to the same small geographic area on Long Island. It's pretty clear it's the same user. As for his vandalism, his comments about Chaminade certainly are, and his changes to the demographics are pretty significant (he changes the African American population from 8% to 1%, the Asian American population from 13.55% to 4.7%, and the White from 74.10% to 94.10%), and seem not to be confusion, but clear vandalism. He's had his warnings.--Info999 04:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocking is not punitive, it is preventative and after leaving a note the ip stopped editing. IP blocks are usually given when the ip ignores warnings and continues vandalising. That one has had one 31 hour block, the next would likely be 48 or 62 hours - that they've taken enough of our time just discussing it is a shame..--Alf ^melmac 06:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another vandal...

Hi, I've seen you warned User:217.83.125.168. Next time you spot a vandal, could you please check all other edits by that vandal? This one vandalized two other pages before the one you reverted, and since those articles weren't attracting much attention, the vandalism stayed there for a week... – Alensha ^talk 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that is my usual policy, as I had been at work all day, I may have been needed there.--Alf ^melmac 21:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Welcome

See....I told you you'd Welcome me again :) . And, as with all the previous welcomes...I am grateful. Basically 90% of all the 156.34 IPs are either me or one of the other librarians...and we are all happy and content to be anons. That being said I reverted vandalism from a 156.34 IP the other day...rotten students! We can't all be angels. Have a nice day! 156.34.222.15 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to remember that, but I have weakness with the numbers, they don't stay in head very well :) Nice to have welcomed you again :D --Alf ^melmac 18:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official note of gratitude

Thank you for the nomination and the faith in me to put me forward for Adminship. I will not let you down. Right, now that's over, there's work to be done all over. :) Bubba hotep 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! This is good. I can see what I will be doing tonight. :) Bubba hotep 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You just carry on pal, doing fine there.--Alf ^melmac 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

[edit] Reincarnations

Looks like they did turn up after all! Bubba hotep 09:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And with such an unexpected name too, who'd have thunk it ;p --Alf ^melmac 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Katie Holmes' line out of Go? Glen 09:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Glen, you really shouldn't direct me towards Katie Holmes at this time of the morning! :) Bubba hotep 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ok now, it's gone midday ;) --Alf ^melmac 12:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Back

Hello Wiki alf. I am back from my break. How are you doing? Have a nice week and god bless :) --James, La gloria è a dio 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Do call me Alf, I will have a much better week for having your good wishes, thanks.--Alf ^melmac 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back, too. But I'm trying to sort out alternative internet arrangements online. Do call me "confused and definitely frustrated". :) Bubba hotep 20:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well hi Mr confused and definitely frustrated of [insert county here].!--Alf ^melmac 21:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic? I can prevent people from making full, unfettered use of their internet connection by editing what they want via blocking them, but I can't arrange alternatives for myself without a Grade A security alert involving MI5 and BT? I give up. :) Bubba hotep 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a double-top-secret-Grade-A MI5 alert and BT? There's one too many BTs in that picture for my liking :p--Alf ^melmac 21:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I say MI5? Sorry, I meant MFI. It'd be easier to assemble one of their cabinets right now, for sure. Bubba hotep 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lazy sunday afternoon

I see you're bugging those vandals again! How dare you! [1] Deleting great revelations, how dare you! Censorship! ;-) --JoanneB 16:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm...yes :) --Alf ^melmac 16:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsk. I'd NEVER do that. I bet you didn't even check if it was actually 'quted' (sic) from that book. It could have been, you know. And now the world will never know. <peers at moon and compares sides>. --JoanneB 16:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you remember last week - when I told you the little blue fellas wanted to keep that bit under warps, at least until they've got their advertising for it sorted out. tsk! indeed.--Alf ^melmac 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Completely forgot about that! I guess that was why you removed the ch**se reference too? It all makes sense now! :) --JoanneB 17:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes, that's torn it, now they'll all be wanting some :p --Alf ^melmac 17:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your help

Hi Wiki alf remember me? I am the IP you have issued several "Welcomes" to. Well...I need your help. The Harmony Central article has turned into a POV soapbox for several IPs and a couple of "rant only" user accounts created to post their anti-website bitchings with Wikipedia as the podium. Do you think you could work your magic on the article(and the single purpose accounts that are editing it) Thanks and have a nice day. 156.34.211.206 23:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh, that article has been taking hits today. OK looking.--Alf ^melmac 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Thank you Thank you! Have fun. 156.34.211.206 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WOW, you can't say he isn't persistent! jeeeeeez! 156.34.211.206 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be hasty and give up your Wiki waiting for a cite over at Harmony Central. Just prod the thing. Wiki needs a good "hoover'ing". Some numbo created the Guitar Virtuosi category again this morning.....for the umpteenth time.(thankfully Speedy D'd....a block should be put on the re-create). It seems Mondays are soapbox days on Wiki. Fun Fun Fun. 156.34.142.110 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the article needs something sharper and harder than a mere prod :p .... --Alf ^melmac 16:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EL?

Quick question/different subject....the RS link in the Sabbath article violates WP:EL??? Just wondering. 156.34.142.110 13:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't use that as the criteria, it has less info than the article, so I found it of no use and also was confronted with ads and pop ups.--Alf ^melmac 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the quick reply. 156.34.142.110 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templar pages

Thanks for your help in scrubbing off the vandalism on these pages. With the ensuing 700th anniversary of the suppression in October, I fear that more and more of this nonsense will be going on. Is there anything that can be done to only allow editing by registered users, not anon IP edits?? It's bad enough having to put up with the examples of drivelling nonsense from some of so-called editors without having to wade through this deliberate annoyance as well. Just an idea. Thanks again Lord Knowle 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob about the anti-vandalism - the historical articles relating to the Templars are already on my watchlist, I'll add the two I've recently become aware of relating to the current order. Usually a page will only be locked for 'only registered users to edit' if the vandalism is non-stop and fast hitting, shouldn't be a problem, my guesstimate on those pages is that it'll be no more than 10 minutes at most before it's identified and shot, more frequently sooner. Even if protected pages are locked - they should only be locked for short time, so I don't think that's going to be the answer to the ever present problem of vandalism, fortunately the Templar pages (at present) are much less vandalised than most.--Alf ^melmac 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just because I love you...

Keep up the good work, me old trout! (Pass the paté d'chat, sil vous plait...) Hamster Sandwich 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooooo the paté d'chat, I'd forgotten I'd put that onto the table. Alf passes Hammy the paté :) Very nice to hear from you Hammy.--Alf ^melmac 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you silly bilend

ey whats your problem blud? anthony blair's middle name is bilend you cant keep the truth from the press for long i have his birth certificate yeh, you know people in good places ==> you get the truth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave567 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

No it's vandalism.--Alf ^melmac 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need your help....again

I know what your saying....jeez, welcome an IP 3-4 times and suddenly he becomes a real pain in the.....oh never mind, here's my problem. I stumbled upon an edit war happening on the Pete Townshend article. I let my gaul get the better of me rather than just seeking help....until now. Y'see...a while ago, a new user uploaded an extremely free image for use in the article. Not a great pic, but a free, free totally free pic none the same. After inserting it into the article a VERY ignorant/uncivil IP showed up...insulted it and rv'd back to the previous pic. Problem is, the previous pic is a screenshot and, by my policy reading, completely UN-fair-use in the article. The IP with the poor attitude switched from his original IP, 72.40.101.169. and is now editing through IP 152.3.46.147. The edit history of both IPs show a user who is quick to vio WP:NPA in his edit summaries, along with an extreme veer against WP:CIVIL as well. I believe he has now taken ownership of the article and 3RR be damned...he is going to prove his point. Do you think you could take the time to intervene? Or perhaps direct me to where I should go to request a proper "slapping"? Thanks, and....sorry for being such a pest lately. Have a nice day. 156.34.211.162 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look as soon as the pain killers kick in this morning. Shouldn't have that Champagne last night.--Alf ^melmac 10:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User AntiVan either read this or came to the same conclusion via a different route - the article state is fine at present and the FU image has been tagged. In the very unlikely event that the user does not appreciate a fair use screenshot being ideal in the article about the film, alongside commentary relating to the image, and everything further away from that worse and worse by degrees, and possibly unaware of the three revert rule, I've left a note.--Alf ^melmac 11:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[typing quietly so as not to disturb the "bubbly" brain :) ]....Thanks Wiki alf. Hopefully policy...and civility will win out in this issue. I promise I won't pester you again today[fingers crossed behind back as he types]. Have a nice, quiet day. 156.34.142.110 12:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alf, yes I did see this here and helped myself to it. Sorry, that is probably a bit rude. I do keep your talk page on my watch list - I'm not stalking you, I just regard you in the light of a mentor who's opinion I trust and feel I can learn by. If that's freaking you out, just say so and I'll disappear. AntiVan 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AntiVan, you're more than welcome, rudeness bedamned, particularly since I was offline at the time, so my thanks for stepping into the breach actually. I learn many ways to skin cats from watching other editors' pages that I respect - please continue to do so yourself, in no way do I consider that activity as stalking.--Alf ^melmac 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My school's blocked situation

Hi there. I sometimes edit Wikipedia from school, and the IP it shares was blocked by you for six months. This of course is not a problem for someone who is logged in, but I would like to ask for account creation to be re-enabled (rather, I can do it myself but I am checking if you are okay with it). This is because I try to encourage people to edit, but can't. Please let me know what you think about this (preferably on my talk) and I will do the reblock if you are okay with it. Thanks :) —Xyrael / 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To be entirely honest I don't think I can speak for everyone (especially because the connection is shared between multiple schools), however I don't think a lot of people are aware that they can create an account at all. If I block on top with the restriction removed and with a fresh six-month expiry time, will mine override? I sometimes get confused by our blocking software! Thanks for your time. —Xyrael / 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revisions to "Guinness World Records : Reliability questions"

RE: revisions to "Guinness World Records : Reliability questions" Regarding the entry which starts with: "Richard Synergy is credited..", the original poster of that incorrect and liable statment has agreed to remove it. In fact, he did remove it yet you undid his revision. Please remove that paragraph as it is false AND the person who originally added it has himself tried to remove it to correct his error. By undoing his revision, you are intentionally allowing false claims to be perpetrated in direct conflict with the original posters acknowledged retraction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.80.91.231 (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

The last time I edited the Guinness World Records article was at 17:46, 21 January 2006, over a year ago - with this edit. Please provide me with a diff as to what you think I did.--Alf ^melmac 16:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oitc

dear alf

I am the son of a member of the oitc which has commited suicide. If possible, could you please step into contact with me? Thank you. Try to reach me after 2000h European Central Time. Thx

I have no connection with OITC, if you wish to discuss something with me privately, you had better email me, using the email link on the left there, though I do not check mail everyday and may take a little time to respond.--Alf ^melmac 11:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 196.207.47.60 problem

Hallo,

I'm on vodacom 3G internet in South Africa. They use a transparent proxy. I have seen some message about this IP address somewhere, before I have logged on. I can a sure you that all I want to do is share my knowledge.

Thank you, Marjo van LierRooivos 12:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rooivos, User talk:196.207.47.60 does have some messages about unconstructive edits, and I've added the shared ip notice, so should it be blocked it would more likely to allow logged on users still on that ip to edit. The ranges of Vodacoms GPRS1 is 196.207.32.0 - 196.207.47.25 so it might act somewhat like aol and issue different ip numbers to its users with greater frequency. As long as you continue to edit only though the named user account you have (User:Rooivos) should this happen, we can see to unblock you easily. I highly doubt any of the messages on the ip talk page are intended for you and I would say not to worry overly about it and continuing to constructively add to the encyclopedia shouldn't present a problem.--Alf ^melmac 13:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hah!, I went 2 whole days without bugging you.....but

Ol' 152 is back at is uncivil, policy ignoring, POV pushing again on the Pete Townshend article. Without breaching WP:NPA too much...this particular IP is a bothersome editor. Thoughts?, recommendations?, WMDs? Thanks 156.34.142.110 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made the position on the excess of the three revert rule a bit more clear, they seem to be willfully obtuse despite the many straightforward notes regarding the difference between the two.--Alf ^melmac 20:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, POV pushing? I'll admit I'm uncivil and ignore stupid policies, but what POV am I pushing? "Better images are better than worse images"? I didn't know it was illegal to push truisms. The IP change was due to going home for spring break, by the way. Not trying to avoid blocks or anything. Sorry about breaking 3RR too, wasn't really paying attention to that. I do actually like that policy a bit more than others, as it actually has a good rationale for it. Props on the hemorrhoid and rectum links, by the way, I laughed out loud at those. 152.3.46.147 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject University of Oxford

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I didn't see that coming :p - having spammed my watchlist into hell and back over the last 24hours Casper :p --Alf ^melmac 15:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the very tongue in cheek comment above, just can't help myself sometimes :) Would you mind if I didn't join officially, as you know, I do edit quite a number of the related pages, and will continue to do so. I am interested in the project, having noticed your edits some way through the setting up process, I've already watchlisted the project pages and wish the project the very best, but I like mixing up the types of work I do on the wiki and want to avoid further promises to projects which I may well not be able to keep (as I did with the wiki-project poker :s ). I'll be more than happy to be approached for any admin. tasks that it may involve and hope that when I drop by to make comments when I feel I have something valid to contribute, that'll be ok too.--Alf ^melmac 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy

Bit heavy for that time of the morning, n'est pas? :) Bubba hotep 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I was working on Philip Bate at the time, so it gave me some percussive relief at least :) --Alf ^melmac 10:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting development on the image front. I say "interesting", I mean "disturbing". Maybe? Bubba hotep 10:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And related to the thread below. ↓ Bubba hotep 11:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, heavy, heavy reading first thing, I normally do all that after checking the watchlist :s Well if my points had been acknowledged instead of steaming on past me it might have easier to stay on this side of tracks, oh well....--Alf ^melmac 11:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry 'bout that. I'd been up 6 hours by then! :p Bubba hotep 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks at the clock and wonders if the usual four o'clock snooze will result in insomnia tonight Gosh it's the afternoon already! How time flies when you can't be arsed to get out of bed :) --Alf ^melmac 12:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I look at the clock at the bottom of the screen (real time) and it is a lot more appealing than the UTC time at the top right of this window! Nearer home time. :) Bubba hotep 12:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not to be a pest but...

Just wondering of I could ask your opinion on an issue. Yet another edit war has broken out on the "Pete" article. This time it's over the inclusion of his little 'credit card' snafu being included in the lead section. I've seen this in other articles of similar "closet skeleton" nature and, in my opinion, the inclusion of this type of content lowers Wiki from "struggling encyclopedia" to "ditch tabloid" level. I certainly agree the content should be there. And it is....properly referenced. But in the lead it just looks trashy....to me anyways. What is your opinion on the matter? Just wondering. 156.34.142.110 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it happening, but was catching up after spending too much time elsewhere... according to The relevant MoS page - 'the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview...(blah blah)...and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any'. So those who say "WP:LEAD" at you have a valid point. I do agree that such a short statement, put in such terms, is quite what one would expect of a tabloid, so maybe the answer is in the language being used to put forward the information, not that we want to hide behind words, but it could be much more encyclopedicly (is that even a word?) phrased.--Alf ^melmac 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick input. I stand by my opinion that the inclusion, as it was attempted, was trashy and misleading of the true facts. One user has already mentioned that on the discussion page. That to try and include any mention of it....without treading into BLP gaffs....would require a lengthy wording which would drag the lead down and basically repeat the content as it already exists in the article. The lead could be expanded, I suppose, to say more "general" detail about Townshend and somehow squeeze that a controversial event took place(without actually detailing what it was). Which, in creative prose...[grasping now]...invites the casual Wiki-reader to go further into the article to discover what this "controversy" was. I should be a political speech writer :). Wait....I guess I was....many many years ago. I still have a "bit of the Ol' spin" left in me. Thanks again for your thoughts. 156.34.142.110 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez Louise! How I've ignored the non-existant lead of that article I don't know! I've given a revised opinion on the article talk page.--Alf ^melmac 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)