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. |
TheGeneralUser has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add ((subst:Halloween apples)) to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
Hi Alison! Wishing you a very happy Halloween :-) TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Alison - and a happy Samhain as well! --Overand (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Alison, if you wouldn't mind, could you please pop on to UTRS and provide some background on ticket 9300? You were the blocking admin for the case. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
[1]. I was surprised that an administrator would say something like the lower paragraph. As for promoting a photograph, your definition of COI would apply to any editor to uploads and adds a picture to any article without making a disclosure. Not being legalistic here, but would be nice if you reconsidered your position.Mattnad (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey, saw your finishing a comment on a new line because you got cut off on ticket 9300. I just wanted to let you know that the comments box is a sort of "quick view". If you want to display the full comments, you just click the "Logs for this request" link at the top and there will be a popup box with the full comments. So there is no need to finish off. Also, if you click the "add comment" link, you can use a multi-line box. Just neat little features that are under used.--v/r - TP 21:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Rschen7754 10:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I just like to alert you as a checkuser. I have made a case of abuse of sockpuppets by user Blurred Lines as shown here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blurred Lines and literally within seconds of my making out the case, User talk:Reaper Eternal deleted it with his reason being "obviously not the same user." I made out the case again and requested Reaper to actually investigate. This is not the first time I have brought a case of suspected sockpuppetry abuse to the noticeboard and Reaper Eternal immediately dismissed before it was the same matter was brought to the noticeboard by a different user and it was ultimately discovered that the editor I had reported was in fact abusing sockpuppets. The issue happened with user Cresix in which Reaper first declined my case and someone else would then later bring similar concerns to the noticeboards and it was found that the editor I reported had a penchant for abusing sockpuppets (as shown in the case involving user Cresix here [2] and here [3] and here [4]). The user in this case, Blurred Lines, has a history of abusing sockpuppets and has been blocked for it recently. He has a similar editing style as User:Onorem. I remade out the case, requesting that this checkuser actually investigate. If Reaper will not look into the matter thoroughly and just instantaneously delete the case, could you please?! And could you monitor that this case is actually investigated and not just dismissed within seconds of my making it out? Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)