My user talk policy

  1. Please sign all posts with four tidles
  2. If I started a topic on your talk page, please respond there. If the conversation started here, I'll respond here. This way we do not fragment conversations.
  3. Don't blank any one else's posts.

Jonas block


Can you reduce the Jonas block to 24 hours. Theres a uproar over on AN about it, but he still needs a block. --  Da Punk '95  talk  23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll wait. I see no need to rush. alexandra (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
WP:AN. --  Da Punk '95  talk  23:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

user:Neo-Nazi terrorism supporter


Hi, I think you or another admin should get him to change his name, I don't think I have to explain why... Thanks. Yotcmdr (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



Hi, I recreated the page since I am back from retirement. Could you please delete the my temporary page? Thanks. --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Chris G bot block


I don't think the block is fair. Did you look a the content of the article. It contains words that vandals use frequently. This is why it marked it as QD. Yotcmdr (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted it as a copy-paste from the ENWP version of said article. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
That article had been simplified from the EN version and, as in my summary, I had hoped to work on Felching to get it to DYK or VGA. Please could it be restored? Queen LiLi (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Three articles in a row were legitimate subjects that were tagged wrongly, causing a lot of wasted time. I know that vandals use them frequently, but the bot is being counter productive if humans have to revert its edits. It's not saving time, it's wasting it. alexandra (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
The bot does more good reverts than bad ones. Yotcmdr (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
If one part of it is fault, it's completely faulty. We can go to manually reviewing them if we need be. I have identified three more G3 mis-taggings other than the three that we all just saw. alexandra (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yotcmdr: Bots are normally blocked temporarily until the operator can fix the problems. Once its done, it will be unblocked. Synergy 19:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would agree with you, Cassandra. I am resident on the English Wikipedia, and we have no bots marking articles for QD, or CSD as we know it. An article I created, Defecation, was tagged almost immediately after creation, when it was a legitimate article, yet it was tagged as Vandalism. I based it along the lines of Urination and I do not understand the bots reasoning. I have never vandalised anything, I have almost 3900 edits on English Wikipedia, and a total of 4271 across all the wikipediæ I work on. Bots should not be allowed to mark for QD. Even with Twinkle and Huggle on the English wikipedia, a human is always at the other end. Iceflow (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oddly, the bot noted something others didn't - 3 of the 4 it tagged should more likely have been tagged as G5 instead of G3 - the bot seems to have found itself an open proxy goatse/grawp wannabe. -- Creol(talk) 21:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've disabled the tagging (although it will still tag an article under G7 if its owner blanks it, since that seems to be working fine) --Chris 07:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



Thank you for pointing that to them. I already have two emails out to investigate these new ones. I worked hard here to correct my self and correct others peoples thinking of me and these people are trying to destroy it, they must really hate me. Again, thank you!--   ChristianMan16  18:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just got an email back from Alison, and she confirmed I was being impersonated.--   ChristianMan16  18:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



We made a right balls-up of that... --Gwib -(talk)- 18:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re: Dance in the bus


I apologise for tagging as a Speedy, although imho it deserves it. It doesn't need in my opinion, an rfd to remove a non existant film. There is only one showing of it on the internet, and thats on here! When I got to the page, there was no RFD tags on it. Sorry if I offend you with these comments. I don't mean to. Iceflow (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, it's fine. It really doesn't fit the G1 or A4 criteria, and I'm inclined to let the RFD run its cuorse. alexandra (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



Not sure what happened. When I got to those pages, they were all redlinked categories. Oh well. Synergy 05:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you


for the warm welcome. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



Thanks - I didn't mean to go on about it - just thought it was strange when you raised it. Would you like to strike though or even delete the whole discussion because it is a bad red herring in my view - I don't feel comfortable in calling into question the decision making or the promotion to admin. Although if the % had been for real ... but it is close enough that I can see 65% in it and why the call was made :-) . Regards --Matilda (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

That I can do. alexandra (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

One of the issues with that call was defining exactly when it closed. This changes the voting from anywhere between 11-6 (64.7%) at 0000 20 Oct (midnight, server time), 9-5 (64.2%) at UTC midnight (0000), 11-7 (61.1%) at UTC midnight (2400), 11-8 (57.9%) at server time midnight (2400). A little chaotic in the final day and the actual closing time is ambiguous. While there are times it is an obvious fail by the numbers, there are also times when it was too close to call and other matters needed to be weighed more carefully. After putting all the numbers out there and then looking at the arguments which had no clear consensus either, a discussion took place with yeilded a suggested compromise. The compromise would have negated my oppose and its reasonings and thrown the results in favor of a succussful request (borderline by percentage, clearer success by discussion). The situation was then discussed between Eptalon and FSM before Eptalon made the final decision. -- Creol(talk) 08:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for explaining clearly why Eptalon decided the way he had decided. alexandra (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

TIme zones


Your time zones are not completely off. -- Creol(talk) 01:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I figured. alexandra (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wait, I just reread that. Not completely I'm still a little bit wrong, or w/e. alexandra (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



Hi! Yes I know. Did you want to know anything about it? Yotcmdr (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was just wondering if you were going to accept or decline. I thought you didn't knw about it. alexandra (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well I did know about it. And I think that I'll accpet (why wouldn't I!) Yotcmdr (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



I see RFA is just as sucky here as it is on enwiki :-) How do you turn this on (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

And the bots are even worse... How do you turn this on (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



I just wanted to say that we'll miss you very much here. Thank you very much for the work you've done for Simple English Wikipedia. Respectfully, – RyanCross (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Me too. Drop me a line, I missed the recent drama.... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, thanks for everything you've done. I really worry about the future of Wikipedia, in any language. Best regards, Tezkag72 02:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply



Hello Cassandra, does your recent vote in AE's RFB mean you are back with us or are we still too dramatic for your liking? --Eptalon (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cassandra, I seriously don't think it's a good idea to "retire" then come back just to oppose people's RFXs. It looks a bit like sour grapes. Majorly talk 14:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

RfD nomination of Category:Paramount movies


An editor has requested deletion of Category:Paramount movies, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Category:Paramount movies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Jolly1253 (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply