AlioTheFool

This is Alio's talk page.

A ha ha ha Pidgeon

No. Casull (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of Pidgin. Casull (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

no I'm thinking of pidgeon but you erased it so I can't link now. pidgin is a program. pidgeon is humor. pidgeon is the world.

Dawg I ain't heard about this here pidgeon, now when you get it to acceptable internets use, then we can talk. Go add it to urbandictionary instead or something mang. Casull (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

don't make fun of me. pidgeon is real. pidgeon is very funny. pidgeon deserves a place on wikipedia. better to create a page for pidgeon than to redirect to something else.

But to be fair I like your sense of thinking, but you gotta get it more used on the world first before it can be turned into a Wiki article on pidgeon as a slang, y'hear? it's up to you to make a di-di-di-difference Casull (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

huh? I can speak English too.

Okay, fine, I'll speak in decent non-slang English for a bit. Now, as I was saying, I like your thinking about how we can have the word "pidgeon" meaning someone who shits on forums, but we already got a word for that: Troll. If you're really serious about turning Pidgeon into what you want it to be, you're the one who's gotta spread it around. Good luck having it go against troll, though. Casull (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

nah it was a joke. pidgeon shitting on messageboards that is. He leaves those inane messages on messageboards. Doesn't make him a troll. Just makes him a funny and strange poster. I wouldn't call pidgeon a troll at all.

what the heck is this. I'm talking to someone on my Talk page. That's not allowed? What happened to AGF?

Yeah, I don't see a problem in chatting between users about a subject in which we disagree for a Wiki article. It's all in good fun, anyway. If it's cluttering up the Recent Changes page I'll gladly mark all my additions minor. Casull (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you. AlioTheFool (talk)

it says at the link provided the following: user talk pages, which are used to communicate with other users or leave them messages. That's what I was doing. AlioTheFool (talk)

Welcome!

Hello, AlioTheFool! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ✬Dillard421✬ (talk • contribs) 08:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Please don't Please don't remove things from other people's talkpages, as you did at User talk:Kmweber. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 18:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC) But it doesnt belong there!! Hello I am back!AlioTheFool (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC) User talk pages Just FYI with regards to User:Zeus48, but users have the right to remove content and warnings from their talk pages. --Millbrooky (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC) TB! Hello, AlioTheFool. You have new messages at RoryReloaded's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Category Do you mean Category:Cities, towns and villages in Taplejung District? Count Blofeld 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Yes. It did not exist and you were adding it. You should create it first and then add it. Alio The Fool 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC) However much in good faith you still removed the categories, you were interfering with progress. I still had to make extra edits to restore it to its original version. If you;d clicked the category you'd have seen it full and that it was about to be created. It really doesn't matter whether the category is created before or after, just trust me that I know what I'm doing. Thanks. Count Blofeld 16:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC) You are incorrect. I was not "will were interfering" with anything. If there is a red linked cat I remove it. If you don't want that to happen, create the category first and do not use rollback for obviously constructive edits. Alio The Fool 16:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC) If you noticed, I marked your pages patrolled. I was attempting to help the process and you are employing WP:BITE Alio The Fool 16:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Thankyou, note though me pages are usually automatically patrolled by JVBot. Don't know why it isn't working today. I'll create the categories first from now on to save you worrying about them. Best Count Blofeld 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Yeah you're in the category for users that automatically have their pages marked patrolled, right? I was wondering Alio The Fool 16:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Yes thats right. Not sure whats up with that. I'm starting on Terhathum District now anyway and have created the cat in advance. Thanks for your help I know it was well meant. Sorry Mr. Bigglesworth nibbled you. Count Blofeld 16:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you for being friendly! I don't know anyone here at Wikipedia and I'm by myself in a vast wilderness Alio The Fool 16:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC) You're in de club Alright - welcome to R.E.V.E.R.T (Rancid Editing Vandals Eating Reverter's Talc). You have to be a recent changes patroller (if not, start NOW) and you have to have Twinkle(R). If you want, you may turn at meetings every Saturday at 08:00am, and yeah, that's it. Have a ball (or, in this, vandal-ball)! Rory the Slitheen (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Hello, AlioTheFool. You have new messages at Pedro's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Re: Your ArbCom Vote Thanks for your interest in this year's ArbCom elections. Unfortunately, we were required to set a criteria for voters, and that was decided to be the following: Voters must have a registered account that was created on or before November 1, 2008. Voters must have made 150 edits to articles on that account on or before November 1, 2008. According to an automatic check, which I confirmed by looking at your contribution history, you have not met the requirements. Either you have not made 150 edits to articles (these edits must be in the main namespace) or you did not make them before the deadline of 23:59:59 November 1, 2008 (UTC). I've indented your votes. If you believe I sent this message in error, and that you do meet the requirements, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Rules for bd/category living people Hi. There is a discussion in Template talk:Lifetime but there were some more discussions in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 22, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 November 22 and probably in other places. I think the people who change defaultsort with BD are doing it against consensus and by ignoring serious evidence that BD is not useful for new editors, bots, programs, servers, etc. You can check the discussions on your own and form an opinion. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Well, they shouldn't. I tried to notify many of them. Changes to bd have dramatically dropped down after substitutions. (It's not even in the documentation so people are ignoring it). Lifetime is still high. Some people think they understand the policy. I had the same problem with people keep adding categories in mainspace while they should be doing it in talk pages (for example Category:Date of birth missing). -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC) One person has already been notified. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Since the specific editor added it in an article that didn't have any categories, they isn't a lot we can do. They should subst it but there is no consensus pro or against any method yet. People must not replace already existed categories. Ok, I now it's confusing but there was lack of will to reach a better consensus until now. Let me summarise it a bit: People should not replace yob/yod categories with lifetime In new articles use the method you like more (I think you sense the problem in this temporary decision). The methods are: Directly add DEFAULTSORT and the categories Add Lifetime using subst Add Lifetime BD has always to be substituted (no similar consensus for Lifetime yet). A bot is doing this job every 3-4 days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Re-read the discussion closing. If you think it should be merged explain your rationale. Pawning off your arguement to the fact that some people agreed that a merge was their opinioin, others agreed it should be kept. That then starts a new round of discussion which starts with you backing up your position by policy. I've backed up the reason it should be here. Basically shit or get of the pot. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Don't be rude. Alio The Fool 18:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC) What was rude about my comment....You say it should be merged, ok back it up with policy or in other words shit or get off the pot. All it means is don't continue moaning about how the article should be removed and then only use a discussion as your sole backup. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC) You are very rude. I can tell you shit and other curse words too. You misrepresented the AfD in which a lot of people disagreed with you, and then you get all nasty because I protested. Why can't I use the AfD as backup? That's the expression of the community. I guess you disagree with the community and discount others' opinions. Alio The Fool 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Thank you! Thank you! AlioTheFool - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA. I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions. Thank you!  7  23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Reviewer granted Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC). Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here. If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Survey for new page patrollers New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello AlioTheFool! 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 10:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC). ArbCom elections are now open! Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC) New deal for page patrollers Hi AlioTheFool, 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)