Al Wiseman

Hey, I noticed you've been adding speedy deletion tags to some of the new pages. If you're going to do that, you might want to specify why they're being recommended for deletion, just as a courtesy to other users. The reasons can be found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - you can use the shortcut templates in the sidebar for standard reasons. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edit to Avro Anson

What part of my edit do you consider vandalism?128.100.52.93 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello Al Wiseman, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 19:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

I don't think that this revert was correct, given the content in question and the edit summaries either side of it. Was it justified for some reason that I'm missing? Daniel (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: No it wasn't factual in the slightest. It was patronising lies and total misrepresentations and exaggerations which rightly generated a complaint from the club which the Foundation (via myself) has just had to deal with. The mere presence of two sources doesn't suddenly make it accurate, especially after said sources were totally misrepresented and exaggerated.

Fulham have, in recent years, gained a notoriety amongst the footballing fraternity for incidents of hooliganism; — nonsense, and totally unsupported by any reliable sources.

The two sets of opposing fans clashed in a number of pitched battles with both each other and the police as tempers spilled over on to the playing area. — wrong, the Chelsea fans were kept off the pitch entirely, an inquest revealed.

A number of Fulham supporters from the infamous 'Krazy Kottagers' hooligan firm, who combined with their counterparts 'The Hammy-End Hooligans' form an amalgamated firm known as the 'Hammy & Kottage Pie', were arrested at the time. — er...

In the three years following the aforementioned clash scores of further members have been detained for various breaches of the peace at Craven Cottage and more recently at Kettering Town's Rockingham Road ground, for offences including bouts of vigorous fist-shaking, excessive tutting and proclaimed exclamation of dissatisfaction with a referee's decision. — given the last part of that sentence, the entire paragraph as a whole is revealed for what it truly is: a joke. It was actually the Town fans who were arrested, per the misrepresented news article that masqueraded as a reference.

The Riverside Stand at Craven Cottage has now become widely known in football circles for both violent conduct and abusive chanting, with sections of it a no-go area for visiting fans and stewards due to the volatile nature of the supporters that sit there. — more unsourced hyperbole and exaggeration.

Sound levels were reported to have exceeded 2 decibels during some particularly heated matches. — if you're aware of what a decibel is, you'll know that this is simply an attempted insult to the supporters.

I'm sorry, but the defence that it is "factual" is hardly a defence at all. Daniel (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Al Wiseman! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Al Wiseman,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!