User talk:Alanscottwalker

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk to me. But it's best if you click "My talk" at en:wiki. As I don't come here much, except to read policy and the occasional essay. Alanscottwalker 12:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Database (race condition?) errors[edit]

FYI I've seen people add a comment that (due to some kind of technical error) erased someone else's comment (without giving an "edit conflict" error warning). Your adding a comment while (?) I was deleting a topic might have had a "race condition" which caused a similar but reverse error. (Don't ask me for a clearer explanation, but I'm fairly certain the oversighting of your comment was necessitated by a technical glitch -- which can never be proved to have happened, so you're doomed to infamy ;-) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for deletion[edit]

Requests are closed by administrators, as the header says, and the discussion is closed. You can't reopen the request, nor comment it any longer. I've already said how it's possible to proceed. Moreover, I had already warned that the discussion was still closed, so don't repeat the mistake. Thanks, Nemo 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your the one who is making a mistake. You are clearly involved, over an out of prcoess close that was untimely and against consensus. No fewer than four users have noted this. You should mend your ways. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you've blocked me for something I didn't do? What are you talking about warnings? Unblock me now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: User Nemo has blocked me for edit warring, which I did not do. I also opened a discussion on the talk page, which he did not respond to, before he reverted me, so, if anything he is edit warring not me. He says he warned me but if he did, it was while I was editing the page and did not see it. The first time I became aware of a warning was when I came back here to respond. Nemo is also an involved editor and has untimely reclosed a deletion discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock reason: [1]

This template should be archived normally.


English | español | français | italiano | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

I had said that the discussion was closed and who could edit that page and how to get the closure reviewed if needed. If you revert sysop actions without even reading and then revert the reverts without reading comments of such reverts, you're surely edit warring unproductively. I won't unblock you unless you say you won't edit that discussion any longer. I won't deny the block either, though, so that other sysops can review it. Nemo 22:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what your talking about concerning saying the discussion was closed; it was closed by another involved user, and then I take it reclosed by you an involved user, all out of process. But I have no intention of edit warring on any page, including that one so no I won't edit it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
A closure is a closure and only administrators can close RfD, as the header says. As you've promised not to repeat the mistake, I've unblocked you. Please be more careful next time. Thanks, Nemo 22:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
You have not done it correctly because now my IP is autoblocked, because I share it with a recently blocked user, me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Been there. Are you still autoblocked? (I'll use edit summary to highlight this an issue). Note: When it happened to me, I used an autoblock unblock template. (If you're still blocked, I'll try to find it and give you a link.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I couldn't find the autoblock, but it was because PeterSymonds unblocked it. Sorry, Nemo 22:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I now appear to be fine. Nemo, what does your unblock message mean about breaching process, we never discussed that, I don't know what you mean, so I never promised whatever that is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It's about the "abuse of project/process page" reason for the block. I don't know if this terminology is widely used on English projects, anyway it means for instance edit warring or abusing processes for "personal battles" or whatever, which is what your edit war looked like, for what I said above. If you want to follow the processes instead of acting outside them, as you implied with your words, no problem. Speaking of which, some sysops are already looking for another sysop to review the closure, as the closing admin requested. Nemo 22:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the last is good news. Who is doing so? As for your conduct, is the correct process an RfC about your abject failures as an administrator? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to note just for the records, although I won't complain, that: this comment, in its part about your unblock, is not only wrong but also slightly offensive; you've opened a discussion about the specific RfD in the wrong place, a discussion which was off-topic, off-track improper (as later noted even by yourself; but it will hopefully continue on-track), and I consider this partly against your unblock conditions. Nemo 11:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong how? Where would be the place to have the discussion if not on the Project talk page, about something you improperly reverted on the Project page and the Talk page? You, also still have not responded to my question above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
This is again an abuse of that talk page. It's not that hard to stay on topic on that page, follow the example of the thoughtful comments by Rd232 just above if you manage. I wish you could understand that you should remove that section entirely. Nemo 00:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
What? You want discussion of closure removed from that talk page? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

re RfD talk[edit]

Apparently specific RfD's are not discussed on that talk page. So: I have added a sub-sub topic header to the project page to address questions to the meta sysops and bureaucrats. We are apparently in uncharted territory, and that may not be appropriate (and so deleted). On the other hand this may be a time of (very minor) innovation in process. yada yada yada -- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You can't discuss the contents of the project page on the talk page? That makes no sense. Is that true? Where does it say that? That's not what the header says. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the key word here is "specific" (case) there. (Note: I almost started a discussion there about the removal of a comment from a specific RfD.) It appears to be a matter of historical/customary usage. This is "a very special" RfD. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Admins can't go around enforcing unwritten rules. That's ridiculous. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
There are many things in life that are "matters of custom." I'm not a regular on meta, so I attempt to defer to those who know what the unwritten rules are (within reason, of course). Proofreader77 (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
What unwritten rules? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(Clarifying question) Do you see any other specific RfD's discussed on the Talk Rfd? (And note years in evidence) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Several. Many also discussing closure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
In the past 5 years, s'il vous plaît. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The last discussions on the page are 2008, about specific RFD's or anything at all, but since the page still exists, its obviously meant to be talked on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Onward and upward, or sideways. :-) Now it can discussed in two places... or three ... or four etc. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Nemo in one of his many administrative failings has sought to prevent me form discussing it on the project page at all. So, let the light shine everywhere. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification of mention of issue[edit]

At Requests ...(topic): Please verify change in process wording (on RfDs) is allowed. (For meta community to determine if change is appropriate in current context.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Play "Field_cricket_Gryllus_pennsylvanicus.ogg" (info) (help)
Meanwhile at Requests ... We may not be in Kansas anymore, but it sure
does sounds like it:-) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's true I am having a rather odd non-discussion over at the other editors page that reverted. Something about you don't discuss things on meta. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Support SupportAt least I've learned to make lime-green boxes and cricket sounds. :-)
(Click for live streaming audio of discussion at Meta:Requests)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Here you could also use OK OK

Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Nemo_bis_(removal)[edit]

Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Nemo_bis_(removal) – I mentioned how involved sysop Nemo bis blocked you in February 2012. If you wish to shed light on that block, feel free to do so. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiWand[edit]

Alan, I don't know anything about their business model yet, and can't research it right now. Someone else may know; if not, this is the CEO: https://twitter.com/LiorGrossman Andreas JN466 14:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I thought you knew when you said 'their reason', and could give me "your crib notes", but sincerely thanks for replying. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
They said (in the TechCrunch piece Jan-Bart linked) that the idea was borne out of "their own frustration with Wikipedia’s user interface". If Wikipedia looked as good as they wanted it to, the whole point of their effort would be moot. Will look further into this later. Best, Andreas JN466 17:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)