User talk:AlexanderLondon

Thomas Coke (Methodist)

Hi,

I noticed that you re-created the page Thomas Coke (Methodist), with the explanation "Reinstating page. cannot see why it was deleted." Generally, it's best to request un-deletion of the page at WP:DRV rather than simply going ahead and re-creating it. I've requested that it be speedily deleted as a result: please take this to Deletion Review, rather than re-creating it again. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 12:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because the text appears to have been coppied from here.Geni 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was a copyvio.Geni 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject University of Oxford

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Oxford. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Casper Gutman 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, are you in Oxford still?

Notice you have userbox Oxonian. Could you go to the Ashmolean and take a photo of the Domitianus coin, to replace Image:Domitianus coin.jpg, which may soon be deleted for not being fair use. Thanks! Neddyseagoon - talk 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box

AlexanderLondon...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor behavior

Hello. May I please remind you that treating all editors civilly and refraining from personal attacks and name calling are core policies of wikipedia, on par with verifiability and no original research. Your recent edits on User talk:Jakew do not exhibit the respect that wikipedia demands of its editors for each other. Please refrain from making such attacks in the future, otherwise, measures may have to be taken to protect the project. Thank you for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to have misunderstood me. I am not interested in scaring anyone. The optimal outcome is for you to continue editing, but in a fashion that engages in respectful dialog with your fellow editors. However, as one of wikipedia's sysops entrusted with ensuring the continued operation of the project, I am duty bound to remind you that continued harassment of other editors is not permitted according to wikipedia policy and guideline, and can result in measures being taken that may include loss of editing privileges. You have been a project member since 2006, so you know how we are supposed to act. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Avi (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello AlexanderLondon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Paul Gifford - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. David L. Edwards - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

JAKEW

ONLY my personal opinion, but I suggest someone research Jakew's sources of income. I'd guess he's a paid writer, like those for drugs (pharm reps control those pages). He works very much too conveniently with religious fanatics.Zinbarg (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Gifford

The article Paul Gifford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails the prof test

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks to other users, as this can get you blocked. I see you've been here for a long time, so you should know about being civil. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zad68 01:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to harass other users. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AlexanderLondon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please would somebody consider reversing this block? It really seems like a bit of overkill. I have just got wound up by Jakew and his constant editing of articles to do with circumcision. It is pretty clear to a lot of people around here that Jakew has a very particular angle to push, and he just keeps getting away with posting information which I do not believe is up to the standards of an encyclopedia. I apologise for breaking Wikipedia policy, and I can only plead that I didn't actually realise that highlighting what seems to me to be bias was in breach of policy. Some of the comments are just silly: "I would not count out an attempt to post real-life contact info about Jakew". I may find Jakew annoying, but I'm so stupid as to go posting up any real-life contact information for him. Anyway, I don't have any contact information, don't want to have any contact information, and wouldn't know where to go about finding it. As for blocking the IP address, that is quite unnecessary. I don't think I've ever edited any article on circumcision, or if I did it was with something useful and was just the once, many years ago. I share an IP address with several other people and it would be rather unfair on them to have the IP blocked. I give my solemn undertaking that I never have used, and never will use, my IP address to edit any circumcision article in any way. Please, this is just some annoyance that went a bit far on this occasion. If give my word that if unblocked I'll never go anywhere near Jakew or the circumcision argument again. I just got a bit wound up and did something silly. I apologise unreservedly. Thanks, AlexanderLondon AlexanderLondon (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per discussion below and links reviewed. Your proposal for a topic and interaction ban is a good step, but admitting you "just got wound up by Jakew and his constant editing of articles to do with circumcision" is, to me, a sign that this issue might recur again in some other entirely different context, that you have difficulty keeping cool when the editing gets hot. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Something that concerns me is that this does not appear to be a one-off event, but a long-standing grievance - you were attacking the same editor as long ago as November 2009. (see User talk:Jakew/Archive 5.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like some serious crocodile tears to me. My non-admin opinion as the one who brought this to AN/I: I read nothing here that addresses the reasons for the block sufficient for a lifting of the block. Zad68 16:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Be sure to consider this as well as this from 2 1/2 years ago. Zad68 17:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP block is automatic and is set by the system to prevent block evasion. It will eventually expire, unless people keep trying to edit, and it does look like a case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING towards User:Jakew, I don't see a good reason to unblock at this time.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)